Secrecy is always an essential ingredient of a surveillance State, I think. Amongst other reasons: the value of information attained is thereby multiplied. The examples you site are hardly small, however. Please keep talking. For a “small” example, let me mention the State of Minnesota, which now restricts driving and accident information which until recently was fully public. The clerks who are charged with the job of NOT sharing this information will likely tell you it’s because it is “private.” No such thing! Privacy is a dead duck in today’s surveillance society. Rather, information is “restricted” i.e. secret. Depending on whether …
- Joined February 19, 2006
- Last Visit January 30, 2007
IN THESE TIMES COMMUNITY MEMBERS
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
Ignoring Outrage, Obama Set to Expand Pentagon Presence in Colombia
- 9.
- 10.
RSS Feed