Försöker ta mig igenom föreläsningsserien Snowden and the Future:
http://snowdenandthefuture.info

Som kandidat för miljöpartiet måste jag säga att det här är ett
"compelling argument" i del 3:

    *Environmental law is not law about consent. It's law about the
    adoption of rules of liability reflecting socially determined
    outcomes: levels of safety, security, and welfare.**
    *
    When you take a subject which has previously been subject to
    environmental regulation and you reduce it to
    transactionality---even for the purpose of trying to use market
    mechanisms to reduce the amount of pollution going on---you run into
    people who are deeply concerned about the loss of the idea of a
    socially established limit. You must show that those caps are not
    going readily to be lifted in the exhilarating process, the game, of
    trading.

    But with respect to privacy we have been allowed to fool
    ourselves---or rather, we have allowed our lawyers to fool
    themselves and them to fool everybody else---into the conclusion
    that what is actually a subject of environmental regulation is a
    mere matter of bilateral bargaining. A moment's consideration of the
    facts will show that this is completely not true.

    Of course we acquired this theory not by accident. We acquired this
    theory because tens of billions of dollars in wealth had been put in
    the pockets of people who wanted us to believe it.

    And on the superstructure that came from that base---that is,
    fooling us into the belief that privacy was not a subject of
    environmental concern---environmental devastation was produced by
    the ceaseless pursuit of profit in every legal way imaginable. Which
    of course is more ways than there ought to be, once appropriate
    ecological restraints either have been lifted or have never been
    imposed.
    http://snowdenandthefuture.info/PartIII.html

Känner mig osäker på om någon i Sverige pratat om intigreitet på detta
sätt? Jag kan inte komma på nån. Nicklas Lundblad kanske? Ramberg?
Fleischer Paf?

Har vi några partipoloitiskt obunda tänkare på området?

Nån som vill prataomdet på CCC?
 
//Erik

Till