the privacy of how you receive information is just as sensitive, and just as fragile as the information itself. This may seem paradoxical, but there are many examples to prove it. Learn a bit of history.
For several centuries back, we have something called freedom of the press in the Western world. No one can really force you to news and other information you believe is true, described from your own angle and distribute it. At least that was the idea
As long as there was freedom of the press, any reticle -. Various forms of power holders - have tried to remove it. A famous quote by George Orwell, the author of 1984 stresses that "journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed; everything else is PR. "Therefore, those in power have used any and everything in their power to attack and remove this fragile press freedom.
For example, we recently learned, thanks to Wikileaks, an Australian court not only banned all reporting on multi-country corruption in particular, but also the gag order itself -.. a so-called "superinjunction" This is a fairly new phenomenon, but most of the time, freedom to report the news is not attacked directly - as the example shows WikiLeaks, secrets are difficult to contain, and once the news is out of the gag order, those not bound by it will all report and any the rest.
thus see at a time of World war 2 instead. Meanwhile, in Sweden, a particular brand of socialism was considered so dangerous to society that those in power really really really do not want their newspapers to read. But freedom of the press was in the Constitution - they could not legally ban newspapers from being printed. So what they did instead was to attack the transport newspapers.
In a newly invented law to circumvent the freedom of the press, they banned the transport (trains) to be used to distribute certain named newspapers. The goal was to make it impossible for newspapers to get distributed to all, and therefore avoid dangerous ideas to take hold and prevent new embarrassing to go out. What happened instead was that volunteers organized to distribute newspapers by other means, so that the information transport ban was not particularly effective.
There are many things to learn here, because this is repeated today. You can not really separate the confidentiality of information itself privacy of transportation, for starters. No information is more safe or safer than his means of reaching you. This is exactly what is going on and with the Internet, right now, today.
What happened to this particular attack on freedom of the press? Following what politicians have learned from their own abuse of power, they made new laws, saying that a distributor is required to distribute the newspapers even if the newspapers were clearly illegal . This is a very strong - if not extreme - legal language and a very high protection: the word "obvious" is a high bar to meet, and even then dealers are required to keep the distribution. We're not here for the Internet yet, with laws requiring ISPs to distribute all content too, even if it is obviously illegal. Hopefully we will get there; right now, we are instead of going in the opposite direction, with various courts to decide that special interests have the right to prevent things they do not like being distributed. The story repeats itself.
Privacy remains your own responsibility.
0 Komentar