shiv sastry wrote: [ on 10:25 AM 9/11/2007 ]
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?
OK, I'll try again:
In brief:
* Technology and plain old greed (on the part of tech companies),
coupled with a grab for more power over the citizenry (on the part of
governments) are the vectors fueling the development of a scenario
where ubiquitous surveillance is possible. Note that this has both
technological and regulatory comonents.
* Given that the technological aspects of this, at least, appear to
be irreversible (short of a doomsday scenario like peak oil or
nuclear war, which means large parts of the planet are going to
become pretechnological, which means this will become the least of
anyone's worries) it makes sense to consider what one can do about
it. The two most probable outcomes appear to be either panopticon -
or Big Brother knows everything about you; and sousveillance - i.e,
everybody knows eberything about everybody.
* Protests about invasion of privacy, including on mailing lists,
fulfill at least two functions:
1. Education. Making people aware of what is going on, what the
implications are, what the choices are.
2. Serve as a kind of moral beachhead for the movement at large. It
is generally a good idea to have in front of you a reminder of just
why one is doing something. Whether it is immediately "ineffective"
or not; and whether you are personally comfortable with the arguments
or not. A good analogy would be the Narmada Bachao folks (serving as
a beachhead against rural disenfranchisement at large). Or even
Richard Stallman (ditto with free software).
Having said this, I would still recommend that you read the links I
provided. They have much more information, and make the case more convincingly.
And as an aside, I am not able to understand this:
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.
You are claiming that you weren't able to "plough through" the links.
But I am claiming that these links actually do offer a refutation of
your thesis. Is that not enough incentive? Or are you just taking the
piss here?
Udhay
--
((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
