surveillance, its proponents and its opponents

[Mirimir]

On 12/04/2014 02:08 PM, Juan wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 17:30:07 -0700
> Mirimir <mirimir at riseup.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 12/03/2014 06:21 AM, dan at 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.