""Now it is becoming silly. Please clarify that if you can and state how she became my "sacrificial lamb"" Well, firstly, make sure you keep my statement in context - I said "So Jill Meagher is one of the sacrificial lambs that are required for your argument to stand?" in reply to your comment: "As tacky a thing to say(I've never been accused of good taste),this particular murder you refer to is neither here nor there in relation to larger questions of civil liberties vis a vis "public safety" however that is construed." No further clarification required on that point - you can't unbake a cake...that's what you said - indeed, "pretty tacky"." ............................... Tacky it may be but I generally don't unbake cakes and knew what I was saying. Tackiness is unrelated to truth. In this case her murder is irrelevant to the topic at hand ie. a surveillance state. You seem to be fixated on her. I don't own a TV so only know of her from comment here.Using one case of murder to justify spying on all of us is wrong on all levels.Most murders are committed by family and friends of victims so her particular case is even less relevant. ................................. "Should all phone calls be recorded? All web pages viewed? All emails? All cars tracked(all mobile phones are)?"
Perhaps in some cases - it depends on the context. And automatic recording of everything does not imply automatic listening or viewing either, but if it is available to be accessed in cases of potential crime being committed, then yes. However, it means that appropriate checks and balances are required to ensure data is only checked if there is an "order" for it to be reviewed." ............................................. A good straight answer for once, very good. If everything is recorded that still allows for retrospectively going back and listening/viewing. What happens when the concept of crime changes and expands, especially that of "thought crime"? Someone decides to go on a witchhunt against anti muslim individuals in society and decides to dredge up your and mine comments here or my attitudes to privacy? And decides we are a threat to society and need to be neutralized in order for the safe functioning of society? As per FBI guidelines stating that those in the US who refer to the constitution as "potential domestic terrorists". Where does it stop? My problem is not with CCTV in this particular murder case as it's in a sense beside the point but rather where society goes in 10 or 20 years time as these things take on a life of their own. ................................. "Okay Ron, from a Civil Libertarian perspective, what do you say is acceptable? Where do you draw the line in terms of surveillance?" ..................................
I don't generally think in terms of labels much and try to avoid doing it to others(not always successfully) so I don't think of myself as a "civil libertarian" as such. Rather I do fear an emerging surveillance state, as that also implies that the state is our master rather than the delegated powers of a free citizenry. Therefore I do not believe that the state has the right to monitor citizens at all. It reverses the citizen/state relationship.
.....................................
"Are you comfortable with your money in the bank? Are you comfortable with a credit card? At a certain point, you have to accept the fact that your data is going to be stored. Civil Libertarians should change tack and be more focused on the checks and balances in place to ensure data is kept as secure as possible, rather than focusing solely on the argument that anything recorded is an invasion of civil liberties." ................................... i have no problem with data stored by private institutions, it's part of the conditions of use. I am less happy with them sharing it with anyone, government included. As for checks and balances, they are fine in theory but without absolutes will be eroded by political expediency over time.
....................................... "Obviously there are going to be scenarios where commonsense should prevail... ...that's where my original comment began: "there is often a focus on the negatives of these sorts of things, but let's also weigh up the positives of "surveillance". I'm happy to say that there is good and bad in all of this. I'm not toeing any ideological line to the letter." .......................................
As for common sense, I agree, but to tell you the absolute truth, I don't trust common sense to stay common sense over time. Now that total surveillance can be technically achieved it is but a small step( almost common sense to some) to do it. Look at the US heading down the police state path, with "safeguards" falling every step of the way, possibly due to routine. Tap a thousand phones with a warrant and when it becomes technically easy enough it is then "common sense" to extend it at whim to all. That is the real danger IMO.
Anyhow, thanks for the electrons, gotta get up at 8.
