On Friday 15 September 2006 00:01, Dinesh Shah wrote: > Hi! > > On 9/14/06, Devdas Bhagat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think there is a great misconception between identity and > privacy. Establishing an identity does not necessarily lead to lose > of privacy or liberty. I does in very insidious ways. Particularly if the constitution does not gurantee that irrespective of anything. Nice caveats like national security -which means crooked money lending politico shot by half starved farmer. > > > > and walks away or will keep changing ids after every crime. > > > Knowledge of a person's id acts as a natural control over > > > behavior. > > > > And there are perfectly good reasons for anonymous speech. > > Particularly when you want to criticise the government. I see > > absolutely no reason to trust a government which goes about > > banning blogs terming them "anti-national". > > The anonymous speech can not and will not be stopped. Having an > identity does not mean that you can not have an anonymous or free > speech. That is in fact the prime concern. When governments or society for that matter decides on some arbitary rukes of behaviour - women must wear burkha which is a small shift away from women should dress decently which is a small shift away from all citizens should dress decently and zounds so nice and pious - identity becomes a dangerous weapon. > > > Citizen Information System sounds like it provides information TO > > citizens. Instead, it provides information ABOUT citizens. Now, > > from when do we start wearing the star of david^W^W^Wthe > > cresent^W^W... ? (I lose here). We are talking of identity rather than CISS. CISS has got nothing to do with identity. > > May I recommend Nineteen Eighty-Four? While you are at it, Brave > > New World, Farenheit 451, Animal Farm, Lord of the Flies, The > > rise and fall of the Third Reich are also good to read. > > I would call it pure paranoia. You cant. Its already happened - Guantanamo, secret prisons in Poland, Afghanistan and who knows where else. Built and run by those who obtained power thru a (almost) legitimate democratic process. > > Since electricity gives a shock and it can be fatal one must not > generate or use electricity. :-) > > Same arguments are given for nuclear, genetic and other > technologies . > > We must remember that technology per say is never evil. It is the > technology in the wrong hands which leads to disaster. > > And I think you and many have great distrust in our government. But > remember that this is the government elected by you and me. :-) (It > does not matter whether you vote or not ;-)) > > > Devdas Bhagat > > I hope a system developed under FOSS will have sufficient checks > and balances for providing freedom of speech and other > constitutional rights to the citizens. FOSS can ensure that the tech flaws are visible and therefore correctable. Like thevoting machine fiasco in the USA http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/ts-paper.pdf FOSS cannot change the malicious nature of systems. -- Rgds JTD -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
