“The way we’re encouraged to cope with this is to make it about privacy: to turn inwards, take stock of our personal inner domain, and decide just how much of our lives can be offered up to the state. Large scale, bureaucratic intrusion into our personal lives is a given, but we can fill out a customer response card if we have any comments about the degree of the intrusion. If this is about privacy, the onus is on us to define its limits, to guide our servant institutions to the right policies that will protect our newly cordoned-off personal space. And so they invent a clever distraction about what the limits of privacy should be.”
Related posts:
Bitcoin Mining’s Inevitable Cloud Future
Will Grigg: "No Hesitation"
A Government Answerable to No One
To The US Govt, Failure To Disclose Foreign Accounts Is Worse Than Child Porn
The Decline of Political Protest
20 Investment Insights from Peter Lynch
I Only Regret That I Have But One Life to Give for My Country: Yours
How to Become the British Monarch
The Shoes Keep on Dropping… What Next?
U.S. Prisons Thriving on Jim Crow Marijuana Arrests
Deadly ‘swatting’ hoaxes and the dangerous conditioning of cops
Satoshi Nakamoto: Natural Elite to the Rescue
On Poisoned Ground: East Chicago’s legacy of lead pollution
Stop Cops' Carjacking
Atlanta Airport Abuses Uber and Lyft Drivers and Their Customers
