It is clear that surveillance by the powerful is deadly. Do you also disagree with public records made by the weak, like mailing list archives? I would put personal black boxes in that category; I could be wrong.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 12:49 AM Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 08:34:03PM -0300, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 19:05:52 -0400 > > Karl <gmk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I'm not being clear. I think I've been upsetting you too, something I > do > > > not want to do. I'm a little crestfallen over the difficulty > communicating. > > > > don't worry about upsetting me. As far as communication goes > though it seems you're ignorning my overall comments on 'technology' and > political power. Anyway, I won't repeat them again. At least today... > > > > > > > I think I understand that you know surveillance is stimulating severe > > > danger these days, and that you are very, very concerned around the > idea of > > > us building recording devices. > > > > No, what 'concerns me' is the faulty reasoning. > > > > > We need to protect our privacy and safety, and we need to defend that > those are protected. Am I on the right page here? > > > > So there's an old adage (a saying, holding some truth and/or wisdom): > > Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little > temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. > Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) > https://wisdomquotes.com/liberty-safety-benjamin-franklin/ > > > and some variations from the same link: > > Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not > have, nor do they deserve, either one. > > Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little > security will deserve neither and lose both. > > He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. > > > > The simple technical issue here is the fact that surveillance is > inherently destroying. > > And it is natural for folks to want safety - but heed the Franklin warning > above! > > In principle, if our (as humans) default position when faced with threats > to our safety is to clamour for "solutions" which remove or reduce one or > another of our freedoms, then the likely (towards certain) outcome (at > least over the medium term) shall be the loss each freedom so sacrificed, > and quite likely also that coveted safety. > > To the extent we are able to obtain either the ability or means to protect > ourselves, or to correct wrongs, withOUT giving up any freedom - THIS must > be our first port of call! > > And further, every proposal by anyone, that we "ought give up freedom A, B > and or C", must be treated with the greatest of suspicion, and in the very > very least must be thoroughly evaluated and examined and tested from this > perspectiv of "are we giving up, or even encroaching upon, any basic human > right and/or freedom?" > > If WE do not uphold and protect our own basic human rights, then who will? > > For any who missed the memo, privacy is a basic human right, fundamental > to our dignity. > > > > I don't have to be doing anything wrong, to want my privacy. > >