Re: How transparent should transparency be?

From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Aug 03 2003 - 17:25:57 MDT

  • Next message: Samantha Atkins: "Re: NEWS:Why 'Terrordaq' will come - if the Pentagon likes it or not"

    On Saturday 02 August 2003 07:07, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
    > > This touches on the key point to me. It's never the *knowledge*
    > > of what I or anyone else is up to that is crucial, it's the
    > > *power* to do something about it. I think that if we survey
    > > the literature that addresses totalitarian oppression, from
    > > the Spanish Inquisition to Nineteen-Eighty-Four, then we find
    > > that it's not at all the surveillance that is the problem, but
    > > rather the ability of the authorities to *do* something about
    > > it. Solzhenitsyn uses an entire chapter to describe "The Arrest".
    > >

    That does sound good. Except for the point that political winds shift and
    change. What today is a perfectly cool situation could easily tomorrow have
    those who would oppress much of what you believe the most in. If they have
    total surveillance and the willingness to enforce their views then there
    would be no way to oppose them or simply go one's own way.

    For this reason, at this time, I think it is dangerous, even irresponsibly so,
    to support this level of surveillance, even theoretically.

    - samantha



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 03 2003 - 17:33:12 MDT