On Tuesday 11 Sep 2007 10:04 am, Udhay Shankar N wrote: > 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 give me a break. I just haven't had the drive to plough through the voluminous links you provided, and the less than gripping wiki-definition of that unpronounceable "sousveillance". I scanned two of them briefly, learned little, and did not understand why you might want me to read all that and then say what I want to say. I speak without the benefit of knowing what may have moulded someone else's opinions. Would you be able say why the information in the links you provided make the specific flaws in logic of the protest that I pointed out any less ineffective? We may be talking past each other, and if we are not, I would like to know about it. shiv
