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: d@example.com
"banana" wrote in message
news:gjQgg2AiXouDFwg+@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.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm of the consideration that we don't
have the right to privacy in public. That we don't have the right to travel
anywhere on public roads without anyone knowing where we are. We simply
don't have that right. But, according to you, drivers should be anonymous
on the road, regardless of the fact that many, many motorists get speeding
tickets, and many drive without tax and/or insurance. Having "nothing to
hide" or not doesn't come into it for me.
> 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.
Where the fuck did you pull that one from?? The only property owners I'm
talking about are the public. And yes, I think public spaces should be
goverened with the intent of ensuring everyone has equal access to, and use
thereof.
>
>
>>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'?
So why are you getting upset that they're looking at your car? Shouldn't
you be crying about them being able to look at your junk in the tub?
>>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?
Pretty much :) (and yes, I'm smiling right now)
> 'If you don't like the KGB watching you, go and live in a mental
> institution'.
Where the fuck did the KGB and mental institutions come from? Oh yeah -
you.
> --
> 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)
|
