“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.”
(Visited 37 times, 1 visits today)
Related posts:
Four Centuries of Surveillance: From Privy Councils to FISA Courts
Central Planning Ignores the Needs of Women
Cuba's Past Could Be Your Future
The real story behind the demise of America's once-mighty streetcars
Fight Back Against Hidden Regulations That Threaten Your Health
Everyone Is Now A Terrorist According to The US Government
Will Grigg: Living in Amerika
Who Are the Real Anarchists?
John Grisham: After Guantánamo, Another Injustice
Wendy McElroy: Let a Thousand Home Businesses Bloom
The Security State’s Reaction to Snowden Shows Why It’s Doomed
Michael Scheuer: Limbaugh, Levin, and Hannity eager to see more dead Americans
A Day in the Life of a Regulated Financial Professional
The Most Awesomest War Ever! [2003]
David Galland: Three Levels of Survival Skills