One reason for this is that in each "battle space", symbolic or real,
the stronger wants, well, to win. So if the increase of secrecy is
seen as empowerment, it's only natural that one will want opponents
(subjects) dis-empowered in that respect. Otherwise it would take all
the fun and profit from being the government.

The second reason is practical - mechanics of panopticon need to be
hidden; being able to outguess, pre-empt and predict what citizenry
is up to should not be obvious. For example, the awareness that all
Internet traffic is stored away for eventual future re-visiting would
be quite damaging, as you would, possibly, behave differently (in what
you use internet for or how traceable you are.)

> withdrawing from public discourse. Yet, for whatever reason, there seems 
> to be a inverse relationship between the degree of privacy of ordinary 
> people and the secrecy of governments. 

(of original message)

Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows:



#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to