It's not the "reading and writing" abilities that the folks in charge are so worried about so much as the "thinking" thing. The US government, and presumably the Canadian one too would no doubt be much happier if the masses just believed the official government line that WikiLeaks and Assange engaged in criminal activity.
You know, what we need now is a "Canadian Sarah Palin" to help bring our two countries closer in sync, Vladimyr. --Doug On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky <[email protected]>wrote: > Assange’s actions are having tremendous subsidiary repercussions. > > > > > http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20101208/wikileaks-threat-toronto-woman-101208/ > > > > > > The secrecy advocates are becoming so belligerent and unable to disguise > the true motives. > > Now they threaten housewives that can read and write. > > > > Does Flanagan have something to hide ? > > > > > > > > *Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky* > > *Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology)* > > > > *120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.* > > *Winnipeg, Manitoba* > > *CANADA R2J 3R2* > > *(204) 2548321 Phone/Fax* > > *[email protected]* <[email protected]> > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On > Behalf Of *James Steiner > *Sent:* December 7, 2010 8:21 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective > > > > It's my belief that individual privacy is entirely NOT the same as > government classification (as secret, top secret, etc) of information. > > > > Governments do NOT have a "right of privacy". Our government is supposed to > be "by, of, and for" the people. It's use of secrecy is appropriate (and > should be protected) when that secrecy serves to protect those people, not > when it serves to protect the individuals who do the classifying (or those > they serve) from embarrassment or legal prosecution. > > > > Such uses are (and I'm pretty sure this is not just my opinion), illegal. > > > > We all kind of "knew" that classification has been used this way. We all > hear or see or read anecdotes. Well, the Irag war papers proved it. As have > all the subsequent leaks. > > > > I think that until the government and all its agents demonstrate that they > can use the tool of keeping secrets correctly, that they should not be > allowed to keep secrets. > > > > Wikileaks has done the American People a great service. Now I hope that > they (we) are smart enough, and outraged enough, to move to fix what's > broken. (IMHO, that's congress / campaign finance / influence peddling). > > > > ~~James > > www.turtlezero.com > > > > On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Jochen Fromm <[email protected]> wrote: > > In the age of social media and social networks > privacy has become an issue of intense debate. > Privacy means an individual has the right to be secure from unauthorized > disclosure of information about oneself. > > Now if a state has "state secrets", is this fundamentally different from > privacy issues for > the individual (only for the state)? Should > a state in a democracy have any real secrets > at all? And if the state has the right to prevent invasion of privacy, > shouldn't the individual have the same right, too? > > It is clearly evil what Wikileaks has done recently, > they went to far this time. But too much censorship > and secrecy is not a good idea, either (as the "top secret america" > investigation from the Washington Post showed). What do you think? > > -J. > >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
