At 09:21 PM 5/2/01 -0700, James A. Donald wrote:
> --
>At 03:00 PM 5/1/2001 -0700, David Honig wrote:
>> The sheeple can be shown arguments they understand, like: if you
>> were <evil entity>, wouldn't you be motivated to <insert privacy
>> affront here>. This can alert them.
>
>Then they would promptly vote for a government commissar of privacy, to
>check everyone's logs to make sure that everything that might violate
>privacy was logged by trustworthy authorities.
>
>Since the average vote will make almost no difference, no one will bother
>to think these things through merely for the sake of casting a sensible vote.
There are *several* scenarios that you must communicate. That's why I used
<blah> rather than simply naming the State as the evil actor.
1. Evil Corp or Boss is Watching You and They Plan To <...whatever annoys
the *lefties* about
business intel>, which provokes the whining about a need for govt czars, as
you say.
2. Evil Relative or Ex-SO is Stalking You and <blah>..
3. Evil (future, of course) Govt is looking to feed itself on more taxes,
or getting more intrusive into citizen-monitoring, and govt czars are 'foot
in the door' ---sorta like the FDA, which has got a reputation for causing
more harm than good in some circles. "Once you give them the right to
license you..
you are their slave"
(I don't think 1. is a problem, but it is a prole motivator, and we're talking
psyops here, not ethics.)
....
One can hope. Or one can switch to disgust mode and pursue black nightmares:
The Columbine Memorial Mandatory Web Logging & Access Act of 2002,
"In order to provide safe schools, society needs
to be able to review all page hits and ISP records to identify teens
who view violent pages and have other obvious signs of impending
Matrix-like behavior with firearms, whether in or out of school.
Therefore, we require..."
