Computers, Privacy & the Constitution

View   r5  >  r4  ...
AlexLawrenceSecondPaper 5 - 11 May 2009 - Main.AndreiVoinigescu
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="WebPreferences"

What Can We Do?

Line: 45 to 45
 "There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all."

-- ElizabethDoisy - 09 May 2009

Added:
>
>

Alex, I think you miss the more obvious implication of the Oscar Grant incident: a networked society allows anyone equal opportunity to disseminate information and be heard. While this has alarming effects for individual privacy, it also exposes government itself to a much greater level of scruitiny than was possible before. If your goal is maintaining a balance of power between the citizen and the state in the face of fundamental technological change, then sousveillance might provide a partial answer without the collateral damage to the justice system that would occur under your proposed form of civil dissobedience

-- AndreiVoinigescu - 11 May 2009

 
 
<--/commentPlugin-->

Revision 5r5 - 11 May 2009 - 03:23:24 - AndreiVoinigescu
Revision 4r4 - 10 May 2009 - 02:51:32 - DanaDelger
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM