IP: Re: Britain's sad decline of liberty a warning for U.S.: Dan Gillmor on Technology Thu Jul 05 15:15:09 EDT 2001

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

[ My only comment right now is:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin, ~1784

Dave]

> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Barrett <david_m_barrett () yahoo com>
> Subject: Re: IP: Britain's sad decline of liberty a warning for U.S.: 
> Dan  Gillmor on Technology Thu Jul 05 15:15:09 EDT 2001
> To: dave () farber net
>
> Dave -- Normally I'd just delete this article, just
> like the many whining diatribes of a similar vein, but
> for some reason this one struck a nerve.  I believe
> it's due to the complete lack of substantiative claims
> and unabashed (and unjustified) pro-privacy
> propaganda.
>
> For example, I take issue with the author's implicit
> assertion that the vast majority of people are wrong
> to accept being (what is corrosively labeled)
> "pervasively spied upon".  This uncompromising
> attitude effectively brushes aside the major
> real-world, immediate, and entirely quantifiable
> benefits of law enforcement that are recognized by, I
> presume, the vast majority of people.
>
> Consider his statement:
>
> "It doesn't seem to matter which political party is in
> power. Labor and Conservative governments alike have
> enacted laws that would send American liberty watchers
> into apoplectic diatribes."
>
> Said in another, less inflammatory way:
>
> "Overwhelming public support, as evinced by broad
> approval through the major political parties, indicate
> complete rejection of the apoplectic diatribes of
> American liberty watchers."
>
> Perhaps it'd be useful if these "liberty watchers"
> could make an effective argument as to why the vague
> "Big Brother" dangers of digital surveillance somehow
> outweigh the vast practical benefits.  At least one
> report (http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/97/05/)
> indicates surprising levels of public support for this
> technology (over 90%), as well as substantial
> effectiveness (50-70% reduction in burglaries and
> vandalism, quick apprehension of kidnappers and
> violent criminals, increased ability to acquire guilty
> pleas, etc.).
>
> Alternatively, if no compelling argument can be made
> as to why these qualitative fears should outweigh the
> quantitive benefits of such surveillance, I'd be happy
> to hear alternative options that produce the similar
> quantitive results without the qualitative problems.
>
> Sadly, the "forces of light" seem not to be concerned
> with real world effectiveness.  Rather, it appears
> that they would be more satisfied with lambasting
> political and business leaders from the sidelines,
> using despicable manipulation tactics and fear
> campaigns rather than reasoned and cooperative
> arguments.
>
> What upsets me is that the net effect of this
> ego-gratifying behavior simply undermines the most
> likely and reasonable path to a non-Orwellian future.
> By driving an unnecessary wedge between anti-crime
> realists and pro-privacy idealists by creating a false
> dichotomy of being either safe *or* free, they
> fragment the actual people that should be working to
> safeguard privacy.
>
> Now, I in no way claim that the fears of a
> surveillance state are unfounded.  There are serious
> privacy issues that need to be resolved.  However,
> these are serious privacy issues that need to be
> *resolved*.  And resolution, at least in a democratic
> environment, consists of open dialogue based upon
> reasoned arguments and clear evidence.
>
> If they want to provide that, fantastic.  I'm all
> ears.  But these unsupported smear campaigns against
> the real heroes, those that are actually in the
> trenches trying to find a tough compromise between a
> thousand competing interests, I find completely
> disgusting.
>
> -david
>
> PS: Feel free to post if you like.



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/