http://crookedtimber.org/2004/01/23/citizens-or-data-subjects/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:39:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://crookedtimber.org/2004/01/23/citizens-or-data-subjects/comment-page-1/#comment-14203 msg Sat, 24 Jan 2004 08:41:23 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=940#comment-14203 The "public interest" not only evades definition in its particulars, it's a little dubious as a unified concept. It's not appropriate for "public servants" to extend their own roles and power and defend it as being in the public interest, but isn't the current public doing the same thing? I'd suggest any truly human version of that concept pays scant heed to the present. And what happens when the interests of one segment of the "public" are in direct conflict with those of another? Is there a predetermined value that puts one above the other, or is it set by power struggle? I'm positing a segment of the "public" whose lives will be directly benefited and made more secure by increasing civic surveillance to the level of omniscience, and another segment whose genes will be removed from the pool entirely by that same surveillance. Without the tautology of religious elevation, or some other form of chauvinist rationale, there's no determinant. Just conflict. There's no biological truth behind fair play. It works for us, we like it, but to make it work we have to enforce it, sometimes unfairly. The thought problem of a people tricked into voting themselves out of a democracy and into a despotic tyranny is being played out in the United States at this moment, and England as well, it seems. Maybe it's not as important how much of our lives is being recorded and collated as it is who's doing the recording and collating. - Wonderfully clear post on an absolutely pertinent topic. I hope my dithering isn't too far afield. The “public interest” not only evades definition in its particulars, it’s a little dubious as a unified concept. It’s not appropriate for “public servants” to extend their own roles and power and defend it as being in the public interest, but isn’t the current public doing the same thing? I’d suggest any truly human version of that concept pays scant heed to the present. And what happens when the interests of one segment of the “public” are in direct conflict with those of another? Is there a predetermined value that puts one above the other, or is it set by power struggle? I’m positing a segment of the “public” whose lives will be directly benefited and made more secure by increasing civic surveillance to the level of omniscience, and another segment whose genes will be removed from the pool entirely by that same surveillance. Without the tautology of religious elevation, or some other form of chauvinist rationale, there’s no determinant. Just conflict. There’s no biological truth behind fair play. It works for us, we like it, but to make it work we have to enforce it, sometimes unfairly. The thought problem of a people tricked into voting themselves out of a democracy and into a despotic tyranny is being played out in the United States at this moment, and England as well, it seems. Maybe it’s not as important how much of our lives is being recorded and collated as it is who’s doing the recording and collating. – Wonderfully clear post on an absolutely pertinent topic. I hope my dithering isn’t too far afield.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/01/23/citizens-or-data-subjects/comment-page-1/#comment-14202 robin green Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:25:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=940#comment-14202 Well, that wasn't <i>quite</i> what I would expect from a think tank. Not a criticism at all, though! (I guess I've only read think tank publications from Blairite-ish think tanks before.) Just a comment: it isn't in general always necessary to bring human rights cases to the ECHR, since the Human Rights Act incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. Unless, of course, the relevant section of the Human Rights Act has been watered down. Well, that wasn’t quite what I would expect from a think tank. Not a criticism at all, though! (I guess I’ve only read think tank publications from Blairite-ish think tanks before.) Just a comment: it isn’t in general always necessary to bring human rights cases to the ECHR, since the Human Rights Act incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. Unless, of course, the relevant section of the Human Rights Act has been watered down.

]]>