the civil liberties of our parents are not passed on to our children. somehow, freedoms are interpreted to apply only to analog technology, despite this limitation is nowhere in books. This is a disastrous erosion of fundamental freedoms our ancestors fought, bled and died to give us
This week there was news of a new law passed in the House of representatives US. - Less legislative chamber in the United States. - pass a bill to require a search warrant for the government to search and seize people's e-mail in other words, the government would need a search warrant for private correspondence of the people he got to be transmitted electronically, which virtually all correspondence is today.
This law is weird. It should never have succeeded, because it should not be any kind of need. When you look at the original law giving the protection of privacy in the private correspondence of the people, can you find a passage that says "do note that this law applies only to private correspondence when sent on paper"? Well . sure, you do not do it was assumed because it was the only way to match the time the law was written, and besides, the purpose of this law was that it was supposed to be: on the protection of the privacy of correspondence, not to protect a piece of paper as such.
what a twisted interpretation of the law has decided that the laws detailing our civil liberties apply only analog environments of the ancient world? Who decided that the paper, not the correspondence was protected part?
is a non-exhaustive protections of our list parents, and our children do not do, because of these interpretations of our freedoms :.
- The right to send anything to anonymous person anonymous letters were a staple of our parents, physical letters which are manually dropped in a mailbox physical, and they were frequently used to send proof of abuse of power in the newspapers. Today, if you say that our children should have the same right, the copyright industry is going ballistic and screaming that they can not make a profit if someone can send anything to someone ' an another anonymous (and politicians have interpreted the ancient laws accordingly). As if never determined our civil liberties can make a profit and which can not? Following the copyright industry killing freedom, freedom of the press was also considerably weakened, and the protection of sources virtually eliminated.
- The right to keep the details private. In many jurisdictions, paper newspaper has extensive protection against search and seizure - much higher than (paper) private letters, which already have the protection of significance. In contrast, mobile phone - containing private details much more sensitive than a newspaper, because it also contains things than you think, not what you consciously written down - has no protection all it is considered the legal equivalent of a tool, like a hammer or a wrench, in order to search and seizure.
- The right to read what you want without supervision. The idea that the authorities can track not only what the newspapers we read, but what articles in newspapers, for how long and in what order, and what we sought more information about the on - or we contacted later - this notion would have been absolutely horrible for our parents. When did we lose the freedom to base information retrieval without the prospect of being held to account? (Example: Wikipedia articles on terrorist groups saw a 30% drop in readers when it became known that the NSA monitors what people are reading online, self-censorship is real.)
The list goes on, and is terrifying. (The 1950s dystopic Big Brother novels were wrong in one important aspect: Yes, the government has access to the camera feeds on our homes, but we installed the cameras ourselves with the idea of communicating with our loved .)
reason why the freedoms must be considered in terms of analog equivalent rights : if it was a analog environment [quelsdroitsseraientnos parents have had? People born in the years 1930, 1940, 1950? Those rights must also apply in the digital environment for our children.
For at the end of the day, it was never the piece of paper that has been protected, but private correspondence scribbled on it.
Until this is achieved by legislation, privacy remains your own responsibility.
0 Komentar