XPost: uk.politics.misc, alt.politics.british, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.conspiracy.america-at-war,   
   uk.current-events.terrorism   
   XPost: uk.transport   
   From: banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk   
      
   In article , d   
    writes   
      
   >"Dave J."  wrote in message   
   >news:unroq1pbdbsiccg6f8dvp4gce1rhdqc8nm@4ax.com...   
   >> In MsgID within   
   >> uk.current-events.terrorism, 'banana' wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>Of course they do! How many people do you think they'd have to employ to   
   >>>keep track of every email that gets sent, and listen to every phone   
   >>>call, for instance.   
   >>   
   >> They will not need people. That is what makes it scary. Until recently,   
   >> the thing that prevented mass surveilance and correlation of the available   
   >> data (be it audio video or straightforward digital records) has been that   
   >> the data dwarfed affordable computing and manpower.   
   >   
   >It's not scary.  I don't know why you think it's scary.  People drive   
   >vehicles with strict regulations regarding where, how fast and when they can   
   >be used.  People flaunt these rules.  The government then figures out a   
   >relatively easy way of doing something perfectly legal (observing cars using   
   >PUBLIC roads, on public land, paid for by the public), and puts it into   
   >action.  I'd rather people be held accountable for how they use public   
   >resources (roads, etc.) than listen to them and turn a blind eye to   
   >everything they do on said public property, just because they don't like the   
   >increased observation.   
      
   You appear to think that the overriding consideration should be that   
   people who don't like being watched as they walk down the street may be   
   up to no good. You assume of course that the authorities uphold the   
   general interest, instead of the small ruling group of private interests   
   whom they really do serve.   
      
   You are also close to saying that owners of private property can do what   
   they want with it. Rights of property-owners are enshrined as super-holy   
   in various 'constitutions' but of course they have fuck-all to do with   
   human freedom.   
      
      
      
   >If you're in PUBLIC, you have no right to PRIVACY.  That's why we have those   
   >two words:  PUBLIC and PRIVATE.   
      
   You don't have any right to privacy when you're in the bath, either! Or   
   do you think if the State wanted to pull you in, they'd necessarily wait   
   until you went somewhere 'public'?   
      
   >If you're scared of people knowing what you do in public, then maybe   
   >you should live in some sort of institution away from the scary scary   
   >authorities spying on your thoughts. ;)   
      
   Did you really smile and wink as you typed that?   
      
   'If you don't like the KGB watching you, go and live in a mental   
   institution'.   
      
   --   
   banana     "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you   
               give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to   
               Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the   
               rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)