At 11:50 AM 8/08/2013, Karl Auer wrote: > > Isn't it interesting that various power blocks say they believe in > > democracies and transparency, until their own power interests are > > challenged. Which then leads to the rest of us saying, if you can't > > beat 'em, join 'em. > >I don't understand that last sentence.
Sorry, it was a bit obtuse. What I meant was that the general public either consciously or unconsciously take on board the approaches they see every day by those who are consciously or unconsciously seen to be calling the shots. So if it comes to making a decision about a regular person accusing people of doing something when they haven't (Howard's dobbing scheme) or taking what they can get when they have privileged access (this idea of a volunteer cyberarmy being one point of access) or the multi-thousand contractors with top secret access to national security secrets, while at the same time the political leaders obfuscate, lie, and manipulate the public (i.e. behave unethically), it is highly likely that the general person will start to behave at the edges as well. That's what I meant by the last sentence. It is far too easy to think 'I might as well get mine, all the guys in charge are doing it...' If that is the pervasive ethic, then things like NSA is even worse because it can become a socialised norm. Jan Melbourne, Victoria, Australia [email protected] blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/ business: http://www.janwhitaker.com Our truest response to the irrationality of the world is to paint or sing or write, for only in such response do we find truth. ~Madeline L'Engle, writer _ __________________ _ _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
