Years ago many were concerned that new computer and surveillance techs were driving a loss of privacy. David Brin once thoughtfully argued that we were better off in a transparent society, as long as the light shined also on those in power, such as the police. Sadly, it seems "privacy" laws now keep light off the police, even while it shines brightly on the rest of us. From the Volokh Conspiracy:
Last month, I linked to a story about someone who was "convicted of violating state wiretapping laws" for "conceal[ing] a camera to videotape a Boston University police sergeant … during a 2006 political protest." I wrote that this was outrageous, but entirely consistent with a 2001 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision in Commonwealth v. Hyde, which is based on Massachusetts’ extremely broad privacy law. The court there upheld a conviction of a person who had "secretly tape recording statements made by police officers during a routine traffic stop" of himself. … Now … the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reports:
[Simon Glik] will stand trial on Jan. 29 in Boston Municipal Court on charges of wiretapping, aiding an escape and disturbing the peace for allegedly using his cell phone to record the arrest of a 16-year-old juvenile in a drug case….
Maybe we live in a police state, but thank God its a democratic police state …
bshock,I'm skeptical of "the flaw" you describe as fatal to Brin's argument. I see the world growing more niche based culture thanks to the internet and I suspect a large dose of tolerance will be needed as individuals become more open to holding diverse tastes.Part of this includes more of the public realizing and understanding people are far from infallible, stretching even to the police. The public in essence hires the police and thereby can fire them or reduce their purview by limiting the laws they enforce.
To me, this kind of conversation belongs alongside the radical honesty ( http://www.overcomingbias.c... ) as Biomed Tim alluded.
Impeach them both now people, get on it: usalone.com