[clue-talk] national ID card

[Sean LeBlanc]

On 06-29 13:48, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
> Hmmm, that's an interesting way of thinking about it.  And I'll have to 
> think about this from a philosophical standpoint.  Imagine a world where 
> the philosophy was that everything was open, and everyone knew everyone 
> else.  Sort of like a bigger version of a small-town.  It could give a 
> broader sense of community, and maybe after a few generations make 
> people less paranoid in general.
> 
> It could be abused.  The key is to make sure everything is open, and 
> available to everyone.  I know most people will disagree with me, but I 
> see something valuable in open information and what people would call 
> lack of privacy.  I don't really mind so much that people want privacy, 
> I just think it's an antiquated sentiment that we got from recently 
> being a frontier people/nation.  And I think these steps that seem 
> painful to us are just a natural progression of our society.  I think if 
> you grew up in a world where there was less expectation of privacy, then 
> you wouldn't care so much about what people knew.  And as a good bonus, 
> you'd probably also care more about what you did and act more responsible.

I'd agree with you, but as always, the sheep are shoved aside, and naked
power grabs are made. We have laws that supposedly force transparency in
government right now, and protect our privacy against, say, wiretapping,
right? Pretty well established in Nixon's time, you'd think? 

But no:

It's turned completely upside down: blanket wiretaps for us, exemption by
ridiculous claims to a "fourth branch" by Cheney (IMHO, he should be booted
for this stunt alone; isn't he sworn to uphold the constitution?). The
resurrection (or continuation) of COINTELPRO, and the "decider" tells us
that Congress doesn't have a say in checks and balances.

By the way, the idea of the completely open thing was a topic that RU Sirius
and others on his show went into for a bit on a past show...that's when I
think I was introduced to the idea of "sousveillance":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance

I'm all for it, but if I remember correctly, police often have people turn
off videocameras or go after people snapping pictures of them, even though
they'll turn on the cameras on demonstrations for their own purposes.

Let's say I'm cautiously optimistic that bad things can be averted/stopped,
but then reality intrudes - for example,CNN has been looping ALL DAY the
story of the bomb plot in London. I can only imagine what effect this has on
the mind of the average watcher. And I haven't even bothering to flip over
to Fox to see what they are doing. Probably have bullhorns and sirens going
off...

-- 
Sean LeBlanc:seanleblanc at comcast.net  
http://sean-leblanc.blogspot.com/
Texas law forbids anyone to have a pair of pliers in his possession.