shiv sastry wrote: [ on 06:34 AM 9/11/2007 ]
I do not support a protest that consists of those specific ill-chosen examples that can be guaranteed to backfire. In this case the protest that is guaranteed to backfire is in support of privacy in a public place to perform ostensibly high security banking transactions: actions that the protestors themselves would not perform under normal circumstances. I would much rather support a protest that hits the government's nosy actions where it would hurt rather than tickle and be dismissed as easily as scratching an itch.
Either you think that the notion of "reverse transparency" or "sousveillance" does not address the above, or you're not yet acquainted with it. Which is the case? That will help me modulate my further contributions to this thread accordingly.
Udhay -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
