[governance] Social Media Surveillance OK'd by DHS 'Privacy Office'

[Riaz K Tayob]

There are valid reasons for questioning the goodwill of state 
institutions, especially on the grounds of necessity (which is why it 
remains contested in human rights discourse).

Of course, as you say, it may or may not be valid, likewise one can 
assume or cannot assume goodwill. I prefer the liberal option myself 
irrespective of whether it is developing countries or developed 
countries... and need not fall for the rich country predilection to 
assume all the rich countries do is benign particularly given the 
intimate association of their states and corporations. Necessity is such 
a comprehensive argument... if we embrace the complexity, then solutions 
are possible...

We can agree to disagree,


On 2012/11/19 09:10 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> The right to be forgotten is as utopian a right as it gets. I understand
> the historical context, but just because we had one adolf hitler in the
> past who used state census data to target "non aryan races" doesn't mean
> various other checks and balances don't exist now.
>
> You do have various "privacy activist" types circulating boilerplate
> letters demanding that their ISP not log anything at all about their 
> online
> activity except for billing purposes .. and then they (and various 
> others)
> get infected with a virus, which ddoses some poor guy in, say, a pacific
> island where connectivity is expensive and via satellite.
>
> If he complains to the ISP they're then glad to give him boilerplate that
> says "we don't track what our users do, because of european privacy laws.
> please have your national law enforcement contact our police, and our
> police will contact us, and we'll then start looking for where the 
> problem
> is".
>
> By that time, the poor guy's network is probably long forced off the
> internet, it being that or he winds up paying an astronomical bill for
> bandwidth, ddos mitigation gear, higher server capacity etc etc.
>
> Anyway, the point they are making might - or might not - be valid. It
> certainly does not assume goodwill, and seems to suffer from a siege
> mentality of sorts.
>
>     srs
>
> Riaz K Tayob [19/11/12 07:37 +0200]:
>> Except for the hullabaloo that follows developing countries 
>> 'censorship' and 'abuse of the internet', I would be inclined to 
>> unequivocally agree with you...
>>
>> And it is rather trite to argue that 'stoking fears' is sufficient to 
>> dismiss the point of the article. The point is how are public 
>> resources used in the 'marketplace of ideas' (to use Justice Black's 
>> parlance), in the face of rising use of foodstamps, fiscal cliffs, 
>> unemployment etc... makes the European idea of the 'right to be 
>> forgotten' look rather appealing methinks...
>>
>>
>> On 2012/11/19 04:01 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>>> I love the rhetoric (predictable) and the (over)use of 1984 imagery
>>>
>>> Anyway, have you considered that "search" is enough to find public 
>>> posts on
>>> social media, without "friending and following"?
>>>
>>> "stoking fears that" is precisely what this article sets out to do,
>>> unfortunately
>>>
>>> Which might be a useful goal elsewhere, but not, definitly not, when a
>>> forum has even some pretensions towards being multistakeholder in 
>>> nature.
>>>
>>
>


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t