Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 24th Sep 2012 17:19 UTC
Legal "A leaked document from the CleanIT project shows just how far internal discussions in that initiative have drifted away from its publicly stated aims, as well as the most fundamental legal rules that underpin European democracy and the rule of law. The European Commission-funded CleanIT project claims that it wants to fight terrorism through voluntary self-regulatory measures that defends the rule of law. The initial meetings of the initiative, with their directionless and ill-informed discussions about doing 'something' to solve unidentified online 'terrorist' problems were mainly attended by filtering companies, who saw an interesting business opportunity. Their work has paid off, with numerous proposals for filtering by companies and governments, proposals for liability in case sufficiently intrusive filtering is not used, and calls for increased funding by governments of new filtering technologies." I'll just leave a link here to one of the most popular OSNews articles of all time.
Thread beginning with comment 536358
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Gullible Jones
Member since:

I'll say it anyway:

The problem is not the government spying on the population.

The problem is the government spying on the population, and the population being unable to legally spy back. IMO there's a balance of privacy between government and population at large. If one side or the other holds all the privacy cards, you get serious problems.

Perhaps a better way to put it is that privacy is a kind of power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely - both in the case of individuals, and the case of governments.

Reply Score: 2

r_a_trip Member since:

No, privacy is a right one has to fight for. It is not a war revolving around who can spy on who. Privacy is not power, but protection.

Having no privacy turns people into victims of all the irrationality and the boundless meddling of humanity. Some things simply aren't our concern and people should have a right to have their private, harmless affairs kept to themselves if they desire this.

There is no need to know if John Smith likes lasagna. No need to know that he occasionally visits a dominatrix. No one is better of knowing that John doesn't like Volkswagen. We don't need to know that he got a divorce six years ago because his wife was more obsessed with an electro stimulator than John. We don't need to know that John peeped at the boobs of Sally Sixpack When he was 12.

John is a 40 year old child psychologist and has successfully helped hundreds of children. He absolutely loves children (in the non-pervert way) and he is dedicated to helping them overcome their problems. He is widely recommended.

If your child was in need of a good psychologist and John was recommended, would you send your kid to see him if you only knew of his success rate with kids? I bet you would.

Would you do the same if you knew of John's preferences for S&M, his ex-wife's preference for electro stimulation and the fact that he took a curious peek at Sally's boobs? Maybe you might, but how many people would just paint John as a sexual deviant, who'd probably rape and abuse minors the moment he is left alone with them?

Thing is, what John does with consenting adults behind bedroom doors has no bearing on what he does professionally. What his ex-wife prefers is even more irrelevant, as it doesn't concern John's affairs. Or will we condemn John for being a curious kid?

What are you "hiding", that we need to know, so we can crucify you?

Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find something in them that will hang him. -- Cardinal Richelieu.

Reply Parent Score: 4