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

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

how?  i mean gratuitously bringing hitler into a thread would rank as a godwin, but a thread on World War II, or a thread on the motivation behind EU privacy laws, can hardly avoid mentioning Hitler, I guess?

--srs (iPad)

On 19-Nov-2012, at 17:44, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> On Nov 19, 2012 3:17 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> >
> > Such reactions, and comments, should certainly be coloured by the overall context of the laws in force in the country at any given time.  Democracy versus dictatorship / totalitarian government, constitutional protections for free speech and such.
> >
> > The rest as Alejandro has pointed out in his email.
> >
> 
> And a Godwin upthread!
> 
> Rgds,
> 
> McTim
> 
> > --srs (iPad)
> >
> > On 19-Nov-2012, at 13:00, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121119/14d4a4a0/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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