On 10/14/09 15:44, andrel wrote:
> On 14-10-2009 18:15, Darren New wrote:
>> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>> I think that's what Darren meant - freedom not to have a bank and
>>> perhaps he was equating checks with cash. It's almost the same,
>>> really. Instead of getting paid by the company, you'll get your
>>> salary from the bank.
>>
>> Right. The point was getting paid in a way that the government didn't
>> necessarily know where you are or where you're spending your money.
>
> What about some organization that watches over misuse of privacy
> sensitive information? I think our government is by law not allowed to
> know this information. They can get it in a investigation of a criminal
> case, but if they get it in any other situation people might get fired
> and ministers send home.

	Over here, in recent times, if there's an abuse that's discovered, they 
often just pass legislation to retroactively allow it in the name of 
national security.

	That's what happened with the telephone surveillance. I don't know if 
what the government did was illegal, but the telephone companies who 
agreed to it without the required steps (warrant, etc) *did* break the 
law. And last year the Senate voted to retroactively make it legal. 
Pre-president Obama flip flopped and voted in favor of immunity. Needed 
votes, you know ;-)

	There are indications that the CIA, etc were involved in torture and 
can be held accountable (it's not really clear). Yet so far this 
administration hasn't conducted an investigation - although they keep 
suggesting that they _may_.

	If they get away with stuff like this, I'm not really hopeful they'll 
care that much when it comes to misuse of private information. Perhaps 
people don't care that much about the torture (you know, a dirty filthy 
Arab terrorist is the victim...), but most don't seem to care about the 
surveillance or the library books, which is stuff that involves *them*, 
and not someone classified as an enemy.

	Once in a while, though, lawsuits are put into motion and the courts 
rule against the government. It's a slow process, and doesn't affect 
cases like the telephone surveillance where Congress passes legislation 
allowing it - unless that legislation turns out to be unconstitutional.

	

-- 
"I solved my drinking problem. I joined Alcoholics Anonymous. I still 
drink, but I use a different name"
	-- Rodney Dangerfield

Post a reply to this message