In the interference of the latest threat against freedom and the net like a wild goose chase, it is sometimes useful to ask the big question: why do we have incompetent politicians in the first place that force us to be that vigilance for obvious freedoms
fighting for net neutrality and basic privacy in the European Union, for the right to cryptography in Russia struggle against the prison sentences of ten crazy years to sharing knowledge and culture in the UK. It is just the latest of attention grabbers in a long string of nonsense dating back in time: ACTA, SOPA, and notice-takedown, liability of the messenger, the (first) cryptographic wars, and so after. Occasionally, you can not help but realize that being an activist for freedom in this landscape necessarily jump off a brushfire to another.
Occasionally, it may be useful to take a step back from all this looking at the image of the forest, instead of focusing on an individual tree. Why do we have to defend our freedoms, first, when it is the work of politicians and law enforcement to defend these freedoms - the very people we are opposed literally do their work for them against their will
[1945007?] We live in a time of change. It is also disturbing that when the press appeared, only ten to twenty times faster. Changes to the company that used to make a living memory (about 80 years) to occur, and therefore does not meet a lot of natural resistance now comes instead of ten years. Or two. Or a couple of months. This leads to a lot of people who used to feel in control of the situation not feeling as in control over (and not being in both the control over) - feeling deprived of their rights. When these people are part of the legislative institution, either by pushing the actual voting buttons or not, they react by trying to protect against changes that put them out of controlThere a Chinese proverb :. When the winds of change blow, some people build shelters, and others windmills. Politicians desperately to build shelters against bigger and bigger in the future, at the expense of our liberties.
So why is this huge discrepancy? Why do politicians keep talking about "creating jobs" when in reality they are trying to support industries that have failed and are operating on borrowed time (and legislative favors to hold the competition more profitable alternatives) ? Why legislators behave, well, irrationally
One word: Fear ..
Fear of change, fear of disapproval, the fear of the unknown, especially
politicians do not dare risk takers such as contractors and other change agents. On the contrary, politicians are risk minimizers (just look at any campaign). In this, their profession is literally afraid of the unknown.
When they see things around them otherwise, and do not understand why they ask around their circle of friends (some would say "the boys"). This is a very human behavior: you and I would do exactly the same thing in our circle of friends when there was something for us, we did not understand
The real problem arises when these " friends "are the legacy. industries that are threatened by the same future that politicians are trying to understand. And in this, legislators get a framework where continuous operations and undisturbed by existing industries is the so dovish that must be defended against disturbances, instead of thinking in terms of the defense of fundamental freedoms - freedom expression, intimacy of correspondence and data freedoms of assembly and trade - and simply let fail surpassed industries. (Once they are not competitive, no amount of delay future will change this, anyway.)
The legislative aim should be the preservation of liberty, and not on preserving old jobs that aren 't come back anyway.
This is why we are dealing with the former national telecommunications monopolies to try to dictate how the Internet should work (to protect their cost structure of inheritance, not to maximize the usefulness of the agreement that is the Internet and freedom as a result). This is why we are dealing with the insanity of the copyright industry, while contractors of freedom careerists are not heard at all in the legislative debate. That's why our children do not have the same fundamental freedoms - secrecy of correspondence, the confidentiality of the identity, location privacy, the confidentiality of information -. That our parents had
And this is a problem that we must solve in the long term, big picture, instead of jumping between brushfires. Privacy remains your own responsibility at the end of the day.
0 Komentar