It's a brave new world
http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/08/uk-surveillance-worse-than-1984-says-new-un-privacy-chief/
Quote from: mirth on August 25, 2015, 12:08:50 PM
It's a brave new world
http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/08/uk-surveillance-worse-than-1984-says-new-un-privacy-chief/
Good find. O0 Privacy and data farming are an issue that deserves much more debate - and hopefully clearer legislation regarding people's right to privacy.
Privacy and data not only deserve debate, but heavy restriction.
I have no problem unleashing the dogs of war on someone who can reasonably be suspected of foul play. Dragnets on the entire population should not exist in free nations.
+1 LB. O0
^^ +2 Wise words LB. O0
I agree in theory with LB. The question becomes how do you separate the fish from the foul without some basic evidence?
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on September 05, 2015, 09:50:22 AM
I agree in theory with LB. The question becomes how do you separate the fish from the foul without some basic evidence?
Same as it ever was.
This is not the first nor the last time in history where there are bad elements in a good society.
Thus far there have been zero terrorists caught because the dragnet found them first. It is only as a secondary resource (but highly valuable) that a data sweep has supported an investigation.
-----
I've said this before but it bears repeating.
During the American Revolution about a third of the population vigorously supported divorce from the UK. About a third did not care. About a third supported the crown.
Given the fact that after the Revolution, about a third of the population was, if not hostile at least sympathetic to the enemy, one would think that our system of justice would have been constructed with that experience weighing heavily on its construction.
Despite the fact that a third of the nation might potentially have been unhappy with the outcome, the law still made it clear that an investigation needed to have some solid reasons in order to proceed.
-----
So, given that a dragnet does not work in opening an investigation, and given the fact that the law was constructed in a time where a far greater percentage of the population might have been bad guys, I think we're on solid ground saying that the universal dragnet needs to go.
That isn't to say that we will be 100% safe. But we're not 100% safe now, nor will we ever be. It is only because of this crazy social drive to shirk personal responsibility for actions that the concept of "zero defects" has taken over.
So instead of trying to create a brain-dead bureaucracy where no one is accountable, let's get back to doing what's right, accepting the risk that humans are both involved and fallible, and let's move on doing the best we can in a free and open society.
Bravo! And well said!!
@LB
I suspect that the wish to create a lack of accountability in bureaucracy derives as much from blame culture not being forgive when someone owns up to their mistakes and allows them to move on. The blame culture then creates a defensive mindset, that manifests itself in collective responsibility and at worst a "corporate" culture of denial. This isn't just in government bureaucracy, but in many walks of life. People want people in the wrong to own up and be accountable, but I'd suggest the harassment, and persecution, potentially long term and career affecting that runs alongside with honesty and accountability, operate against the openness that they wish for in the first place. The blame culture IMHO is the parent of a lack of accountability, especially in public life.
In behavioural terms you can see where this bites with the growth of public liability insurance. Professional negligence insurance is a classic. Someone makes a mistake, but daredn't own up because that is an admission of negligence, and they'll be sued - hence the whole defensive mindset. Ironically, sometimes all the "complainant" wants is an apology, but often fail to get even that (even though it might be well deserved, and go no further) but you often see the denial of liability, nor any admission of contrition simply because of the fear of litigation.