On 12/04/2014 02:08 PM, Juan wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 17:30:07 -0700 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 12/03/2014 06:21 AM, dan@geer.org wrote:
Sociologically speaking, is it not interesting that Pres. Obama's freshest proposal for race relations is to deploy yet more surveillance cameras? Body cameras for all police, an announcement made while arch-racist Sharpton was in the White House, is, of course, wholly consistent with Obama's basic intuitions whether we are talking drones in Asia or the data sharing requirements under Obamacare.
The immigrant amnesty groups certainly got under Obama's skin by calling him the "deporter in chief;" is it not time to call him the "voyeur in chief?"
--dan
There are trade-offs between privacy and accountability. In the interest of social justice,
what is that?
How about <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice>? I could also have said "protecting human rights".
there must be accountability for those who possess authority and power. That does entail reduced privacy, but that's just a cost of having authority and power. The degree of accountability (and loss of privacy) should be proportionate to the authority and power possessed.
that sounds good - but royally miss the point - which is to get rid of people who have authority and power.
Even in egalitarian human societies, some will always possess role-specific authority and power. I do agree on the need to minimize authority and power, and to ensure that it's truly legitimate.
Conversely, those without particular authority and power deserve maximal privacy, except in areas where they are accountable. Common examples include driving vehicles and parenting children.
lol
it's for the children!!!
Read _Foundations of Psychohistory_ by Lloyd DeMause.