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/