The US bill of rights - which is the bedrock of all these constitutional protections, applies to US citizens. So .. I am not sure if this discussion isn't entirely moot.
--srs (iPad) On 21-Aug-2013, at 9:22, SS <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 2013-08-21 at 07:47 +0530, Udhay Shankar N wrote: >> Shades of "if you aren't doing anything wrong, why do you object?" in >> your response. I'll revisit this later. > > Yes, but I will explain below. First let me respond to this quote > > >> its currency in a society. The Haunted Land, a book that delineates how >> East German society was completely reforged around the authority of >> secretly collected personal data illustrates how caustic routinized >> surveillance can become. Spouses ratted each other out to the >> authorities, in ways resonant with the odd stories of kids turning in >> their parents for smoking dope in the back yard. No one could have a >> personal life worthy of the name. In an environment of permanent >> legitimized electronic surveillance, you could argue the establishment >> of an East German scenario here is only a matter of time > > None of this is new. George Orwell predicted it. It happened in Stalin's > Russia, and China has been well into this for decades. > > Power and control have always meant control over what people say. The > anger and indignation in my view comes from the idea that some "free" > societies were somehow immune to this. > > To my mind the only way to counter this is by subversion from within the > system, not by fighting the system. The system looks out for those who > fight it. The system needs to be inundated with people who are doing no > wrong. A world of sheeple who do not worry about surveillance makes it > easier to look out for those who are avoiding surveillance. In my view > the thing to do is to accept surveillance, embrace it, and set up the > mechanism for subterfuge. Only that route can allow creative ways of > spooking the system to emerge. > > If I were a criminal, this is exactly what I would do. Surveillance is > designed to discourage criminals (specifically terrorists) from using > the existing system and restricting their ability to communicate and > plan. A useful side effect for the government is that everyone gets > watched. The criminal would be the last person to complain about being > watched - only honest people do - although criminals might add to the > protests acting like "Honest people who genuinely want privacy" simply > as a political ploy to pressurize governments who are high on their > ability to control. > > I am not trying to criticize or mock anyone, but I have noticed that in > America the constitution guarantees certain freedoms and those freedoms > are being removed, leading to protests. If I extrapolate this I predict > that there is an outside chance that Americans might win court battles > that protect US citizens, but non US citizens will continue to face > everything that can be thrown at them by way of control and monitoring. > Under the circumstances, I see no option other than to simply cooperate > with the system and discover my own ways of doing what I might want to > do in private. > > Incidentally is there a "right to privacy?". I have no idea. > > shiv > > >
