Eric.Fogleman@analog.com contributes his view that:
I agree with Dave Deltorto's idea about "a body that decided on a case by case (or a class by class) basis what accounts would be subject to heavy scrutiny". Or perhaps limiting certain public servants (the chief executive, Oliver North's successor, etc) to a set of "open" computing systems and communication paths. (Similar to limiting people with security clearances to sets of closed computing systems, communication paths.)
Dave says:
Unfortunately, this begins to create a overseeing body so huge and convolute as to render the entire process unwieldly approaching on the absurd. I read Kafka's "The Trial" and I don't want to face that sort of Juggernaut any time soon.
Unwieldy? Kafka-esque? Expensive? Possibly, but it doesn't have to be that way. As Bongo says: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." How much do you want to pay?
Well, Eric, I take your point, and I'm willing to 'pay' quite a bit for freedom, especially if I have pals like you to help out in the biz of watchfulness. :-) I guess what I was trying to get at here was that the process could become so convolute that it would no longer be _technically feasible_ to keep an eye on the dangerous character(s) such as the President's National Security Advisor, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the twisted geeks at the CIA, their cronies at the FBI, Hillary Clinton (whoops, she's probably OK) etc, etc, ad nauseam. This doesn't mean I wouldn't _like_ to make sure they're carefully monitored, I just look at the volume of paperwork/electronic files generated by even the most lowly federal agencies and imagine that such a watchdog agency might be logistically incapable of doing the job properly, assuming it could do it in an unobstructed and non-compromised way in the first place. There would have to be a highly selective, maybe viciously random way of keeping potential abusers in line. And who watches the watchdog? Kevin Costner? Speaking of which, has anyone seen this movie "A Few Good Men?" Jack Nicholson plays this meansumnabitch Marine Colonel who basically takes the law into his own hands, blinded by his self-righteous view of his job to protect "us" to the point where he has a young Marine murdered (Jack's great in this one, guys, go check out the bargain matinee). Now, I'm not saying that all government agents are that sick and perverse in the zealous pursuit of their goals, but I acknolwedge that such people can and probably do exist and that if we remain divided and unguarded, we all live at their mercy. I figure the only things that keep us safe at night are pure luck and the few government dudes who let a few details slip into the hands of say, the few crypto-anarchists who can balance things out. A world of absolutes is not a fun world and it's not a safe world. Someone's gotta break the rules every once in a while or we all go down the tubes. Of course, I _personally_ would _never_ break any of the fine laws of our beloved nation, but I know deep in my heart (but not anywhere on my hard disks) that such brave people exist and that the effect of their less-than-legal efforts is the delicate equilibrium in which we continue to prosper and innovate. I have more to say in this, but it's almost dawn and I have to flitter back to my coffin. dave
participants (1)
-
deltortoï¼ aol.com