Schneier on Security: My Reaction to Eric Schmidt
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/my_reaction_to.html

This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us. This is life in former East Germany, or life in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And it's our future as we allow an ever-intrusive eye into our personal, private lives. Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.

Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance. We do nothing wrong when we make love or go to the bathroom. We are not deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for reflection or conversation. We keep private journals, sing in the privacy of the shower, and write letters to secret lovers and then burn them. Privacy is a basic human need. For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes, constantly fearful that -- either now or in the uncertain future -- patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private and innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable.

Bruce Schneier once again gets good mileage out of his earlier essay on the value of privacy. This time quoting portions in response to a remark made by Eric Schmidt with the typical "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place" argument.

Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.

Via Ed Mitchell

strangely similar to the ongiong crisis in membership organisations...?

I'm going through that periodic "who can I bring myself to vote for?" dilemma and this just makes it worse. Just one good party would be enough. (via Lee)

Charlie Brooker gets serious.

Interesting governmental site dealing with freedom (of the use of music potentially)

Web para eliminar leyes innecesarias

^CK HMG using an off the shelf crowd-sourcing package.

This site gives you the chance to tell us which laws and regulations you think we should get rid of.

@nick_clegg et al really cracking down on new/duplicate websites http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/ http://spendingchallenge.hm-treasury.gov.uk/

Interesting governmental site dealing with freedom (of the use of music potentially)

Web para eliminar leyes innecesarias

^CK HMG using an off the shelf crowd-sourcing package.

This site gives you the chance to tell us which laws and regulations you think we should get rid of.

@nick_clegg et al really cracking down on new/duplicate websites http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/ http://spendingchallenge.hm-treasury.gov.uk/