If you read this, you can't but wonder if Big Brother is not already among us. Frankly, I do not understand that people are not able to realize that such inventions are going to make us a lot less free. And all these measures, likewise a few months ago the carrying of your possessions onto an airliner in a transparent bag, are not even proposed, mind you, no, they are announced, as if faits accomplis. Never, in contrast, do you hear something about such security measures being revoked in a set future. The net around us is closing and nobody seems to care one bit, all in the name of some utopian total security.
Another Example. Google has announced its intention to give people the 'chance' to copy all their computer data onto Google's megaservers somewhere in the USA. That way you would not need a hard-drive, not even installed programs anymore on your desk- or laptop, your cpu being limited to an interface at your home. But, again rather of course, this would give the company unlimited access to control your data. Why would I want to share such details with a company that has made an agreement with the far from democratic government of The People's Republic of China about limiting the access to websites that are not endorsed by that government? Please, give me one good reason. I think it is time to start spending some money and creating a .com address.
What beats everything is that all these things are advanced in the name of so-called progress. Isn't it about time that at least some politicians start reacting against such intrusions of privacy? Everyday you read about European and other governments giving up personal data contained in phone conversations and e-mails, bank and payment data and free citizens' movements to agencies, government bodies and private companies (because more and more such tasks are handed over to private companies, since governments do not have the know-how nor the money to carry out such tasks) who are not in the least obligated to accept some form of control or accountability.
If democratically elected politicians stand for such invasions of privacy and let all these developments that are detrimental to democracy and free citizenship run its course, why do we need them any longer in the first place? Who needs a democracy if the people who represent this democracy for us no longer perform their duties and instead fill their time with making the financial books stick. If that were the sole duty of a politician, then we would be better of with a government of accountants. When such invasions of privacy are, in most of the cases incidentally, uncovered (because mostly you have to read it in a newspaper or another massmedium that has left a shred of decency), the formation of a committee to investigate these "grave matters" is announced. And that is about it. Case closed and see you later.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
wowowow, you're going a bit too fast here Vinne.
1) BBC article is just a report of a scientific idea that is being researched; chances of implementation on European Level is zero
2) Mind you that in the Swift-affair the Belgian Authorities have demanded the investigation of the tranfer of bank-details.
3) Not being able anymore to take fluids with you in your handbags is in no way related to the right to privacy.
4) What Google does is pretty shitty and completely motivated on the bases of capitalistic reason. But, it's that or NO google at all.
5) What IS a scary evolution is the list of passenger-details that companies have to give to the American Authorities. You could definetly invoke a violation of your right to privacy for the ECHR. Tell me when you want to fly to the US and don't want to give those details, could be a nice cae for the ECHR ;).
If you read this, you can't but wonder if Big Brother is not already among us. Frankly, I do not understand that people are not able to realize that such inventions are going to make us a lot less free. And all these measures, likewise a few months ago the carrying of your possessions onto an airliner in a transparent bag, are not even proposed, mind you, no, they are announced, as if faits accomplis
1) never said anything 'bout a european implementation. that the chances are zero is not the point.
2) they have demanded the investigation? we're so lucky, aren't we. they should have taken care it didn't happen in the first place.
3) yes it is. as if a simple bagage check cannot solve these problems. you don't have to be a chemist to grasp when someone is up to no good.
4) i cannot remember my life being less or more shitty before google
besides, going a bit fast is my mode of life. :-) but then again, i change my mind very often ;-)
Post a Comment