| | |
|
MilanPreeFirstEssay 5 - 06 Jan 2021 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| | | In addition to this strict framing by the rule of law, the framing of technologies from their design could also allow states to guard against the dangers that these technologies entail. Indeed, from its conception, any video surveillance system could regulate the use made of it by public authorities: only suspicious sequences could be viewed and recorded, for a limited period of time, etc. “privacy by design" is identified by the European GDPR as an answer to the problems generated by Big Data. Therefore, when designing video-surveillance technologies, states and citizens could ensure a “liberty by design” or “privacy by design”. | |
<
< |
| >
> |
What is a "thoughtful" State? Is that a State run by chin-stroking graduates of the Big Schools? A state without rule of law but full of Xi Jinping Thought? A state with Thomas Jefferson on the money? The self-worship of the State is not ana analytical reality, and it's odd to see it smuggled in this way. | | | | |
<
< | [1] J. Bentham, Principle of Penal Law, Chapter XII: To Facilitate The Recognition and The Finding of Individuals, 1843, p. 496. | >
> | Why do you assume that public spaces belong to the State? I thought they belonged to the public, that is, to the People. See Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496 (1939). | | | | |
<
< | [2] Samuel West, On the Right to Rebel Against Governors, 1776, in American Political Writing During the Founding Era, vol 1, p. 416. | >
> | I don't think the problem with this draft, any more than the last
one, is which side of the question it winds up on. I think the
problem is still with the question, which is why the nature of the
answer doesn't really matter. The route to improvement is to
consider carefully the implicit assumptions behind the question
posed. | | | | |
<
< |
What is the point of the citations? You're not writing the history of ideas, and whether Jeremy Bentham or Samuel West said something adds nothing to your argument.
So what is the argument? Obviously we can also reduce crime by summary execution and the imposition of fear. If we only shot people who "deserved" it, there would be no loss in eliminating life, as if we only surveil "suspicious" behavior there would be, for a perfect utilitarian, no loss in the elimination of privacy. | >
> |
| | | | |
<
< | But such an argument is only useful in confirming the views of those who already buy into the assumptions. If this essay is meant to confirm the biases of those who didn't know that Jeremy Bentham agreed with them, it is successful in achieving its aim, I believe. But if the intention is to speak to those who aren't already convinced, then it would improve the draft to shed the ornamentation and to address the ideas of those who think that consequentialist logic is either inapplicable altogether because rights exist apart from their consequences, or who think that the consequences elided from an analysis of this kind are more vastly more important than the consequences considered.
| >
> | [1] J. Bentham, Principle of Penal Law, Chapter XII: To Facilitate The Recognition and The Finding of Individuals, 1843, p. 496. | | | | |
>
> | [2] Samuel West, On the Right to Rebel Against Governors, 1776, in American Political Writing During the Founding Era, vol 1, p. 416. |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| | |