On 12/04/2014 02:08 PM, Juan wrote: > On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 17:30:07 -0700 > Mirimir <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 12/03/2014 06:21 AM, [email protected] 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.
