Försöker ta mig igenom
föreläsningsserien Snowden and the Future:
Som kandidat för miljöpartiet måste jag säga att det här är ett
"compelling argument" i del 3:
is not law about consent. It’s law about the adoption of
rules of liability reflecting socially determined outcomes:
levels of safety, security, and welfare.
Känner mig osäker på om någon i
Sverige pratat om intigreitet på detta sätt? Jag kan inte komma
på nån. Nicklas Lundblad kanske? Ramberg? Fleischer Paf?
When you take a subject which
has previously been subject to environmental regulation and
you reduce it to transactionality—even for the purpose of
trying to use market mechanisms to reduce the amount of
pollution going on—you run into people who are deeply
concerned about the loss of the idea of a socially established
limit. You must show that those caps are not going readily to
be lifted in the exhilarating process, the game, of trading.
But with respect to privacy we
have been allowed to fool ourselves—or rather, we have allowed
our lawyers to fool themselves and them to fool everybody
else—into the conclusion that what is actually a subject of
environmental regulation is a mere matter of bilateral
bargaining. A moment’s consideration of the facts will show
that this is completely not true.
Of course we acquired this
theory not by accident. We acquired this theory because tens
of billions of dollars in wealth had been put in the pockets
of people who wanted us to believe it.
And on the superstructure that
came from that base—that is, fooling us into the belief that
privacy was not a subject of environmental
concern—environmental devastation was produced by the
ceaseless pursuit of profit in every legal way imaginable.
Which of course is more ways than there ought to be, once
appropriate ecological restraints either have been lifted or
have never been imposed.
Har vi några partipoloitiskt obunda tänkare på området?
Nån som vill prataomdet på CCC?