|
On 12/24/2013 05:40 AM, Erik Josefsson
wrote:
Försöker ta mig igenom
föreläsningsserien Snowden and the Future: http://snowdenandthefuture.info
Som kandidat för miljöpartiet måste jag säga att det här är
ett "compelling argument" i del 3:
Environmental
law 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.
Så här står det i abstraktet till avhandlingen:
"För din och andras säkerhet: Konstitutionella
proportionalitetskrav och Säkerhetspolisens preventiva
tvångsmedel"
http://umu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:664052
Privatkopia emmottagses tacksamt!
"Whereas the importance of privacy from a societal
perspective seemed pivotal in the ’pre-preventive era’ of
communications interception, the view in the last 15 years has
gradually shifted towards a view of privacy as an almost
exclusively individual interest, resulting in a weakened
status of the right to privacy against competing national security
interests."
Alltså, enskildhet är var och ens enskilda ensak.
Pang på röbetan! Eller?
Så vad är Tor?
Ett digitalt reningsverk?
Biodynamiskt odlad morotsjuice?
(det vet ju alla att det är morotsjos i internet)
//Erik
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.
http://snowdenandthefuture.info/PartIII.html
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?
Har vi några partipoloitiskt obunda tänkare på området?
Nån som vill prataomdet på CCC?
//Erik
|