[NetBehaviour] How Much Surveillance Can Democracy Withstand?
dudavalle at hotmail.com
Wed Oct 16 00:51:47 CEST 2013
Software it is just one part of the electronic surveillance that is just part of the tech developments.
The world is going on the Second World CyberWar and the victims are Manning, Assange and Snowden.
And off course ,UK parliament, David Cameron, Obama and all the "world" leaders in SILENCE !
Wikileaks x Governments + Enterprises + FINAZISM
And it is not a "free" software that will solve the problem.
We are under the Netopticon and surveillance are much more bigger than that, he as an American knows how many Militar Bases and agents are from USA all over the world.
He as an american knows about war, tech developments, patents and control.
How many security itens has an American Passport ?
Incredible not a single word about Moore Laws and the need to keep Pace with the latest technology ? And in that sense software is just a follower ...
"To make journalism and democracy safe, we must limit the accumulation of data that is easily accessible to the state"
Not a single word about Amazon Monopoly ? Or do you think that they are not sharing data with NSA ?
When Wikileaks were under attack, all those monopolies like credit cards and others acted together with USA goverment ...
Does the British from this list use Iris recognition on the airport ? And that is happenning only in London airport ?
Surveillance = Dominance = Surveillance = Dominance USA NATO war machine does not stop ...
> Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:10:12 +0100
> From: marc.garrett at furtherfield.org
> To: netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> Subject: [NetBehaviour] How Much Surveillance Can Democracy Withstand?
> How Much Surveillance Can Democracy Withstand?
> Richard Stallman | Wired.com.
> Editor’s Note: Given Richard Stallman’s longtime role in promoting
> software that respects user freedom (including GNU, which just turned
> 30), his suggested “remedies” for all the ways technology can be
> re-designed to provide benefits while avoiding surveillance — like the
> smart meters example he shares below — seem particularly relevant.
> The current level of general surveillance in society is incompatible
> with human rights. To recover our freedom and restore democracy, we must
> reduce surveillance to the point where it is possible for whistleblowers
> of all kinds to talk with journalists without being spotted. To do this
> reliably, we must reduce the surveillance capacity of the systems we use.
> Using free/libre software, as I’ve advocated for 30 years, is the first
> step in taking control of our digital lives. We can’t trust non-free
> software; the NSA uses and even creates security weaknesses in non-free
> software so as to invade our own computers and routers. Free software
> gives us control of our own computers, but that won’t protect our
> privacy once we set foot on the internet.
> Bipartisan legislation to “curtail the domestic surveillance powers” in
> the U.S. is being drawn up, but it relies on limiting the government’s
> use of our virtual dossiers. That won’t suffice to protect
> whistleblowers if “catching the whistleblower” is grounds for access
> sufficient to identify him or her. We need to go further.
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NetBehaviour