[clue-talk] national ID card

[dennisjperkins at comcast.net]

> 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.


Saying that everything should be open is just an excuse to snoop.  We all have expectations of privacy,  be it in personal mail, or email from our home accounts, conversations with friends, financial records, trade secrets, boardroom business, in our homes, in the bedroom...  That person who insists on prying into your personal life probably squawks quite loudly whenever anyone tries to peer into their life.

There is a big difference between public information and private information.  Actual news that occurs in the open.  Records about meetings and decisions by our government officials to ensure that they remain honest and trustworthy.  Scientific, technical and historical knowledge.  Etc.

> 
> 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.

 
> 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.

This might be changing.  One police force was forced to step back and the charges were dropped.
 
> 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...

I'm cautiously optimistic too.  But I also remember that Jefferson thought that there should be periodic revolutions to clean out the cruft that inevitably accumulates in any organization.  And there is the comment that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance (or something like that).