On 12/24/2013 05:40 AM, Erik Josefsson wrote:

Försöker ta mig igenom föreläsningsserien Snowden and the Future: http://snowdenandthefuture.info

Som kandidat för miljöpartiet måste jag säga att det här är ett "compelling argument" i del 3:

*Environmental law is not law about consent. It's law about the
adoption of rules of liability reflecting socially determined
outcomes: levels of safety, security, and welfare.**
*

Så här står det i abstraktet till avhandlingen:

"För din och andras säkerhet: Konstitutionella proportionalitetskrav och Säkerhetspolisens preventiva tvångsmedel" http://umu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:664052

Privatkopia emmottagses tacksamt!

"Whereas the importance of privacy from a societal perspective seemed pivotal in the 'pre-preventive era' of communications interception, the view in the last 15 years has gradually shifted towards a view of *privacy as an almost exclusively individual interest*, resulting in a weakened status of the right to privacy against competing national security interests."

Alltså, enskildhet är var och ens enskilda ensak.

Pang på röbetan! Eller?

Så vad är Tor?

Ett digitalt reningsverk?

Biodynamiskt odlad morotsjuice?

(det vet ju alla att det är morotsjos i internet)

//Erik

**
When you take a subject which has previously been subject to
environmental regulation and you reduce it to
transactionality---even for the purpose of trying to use market
mechanisms to reduce the amount of pollution going on---you run
into people who are deeply concerned about the loss of the idea of
a socially established limit. You must show that those caps are
not going readily to be lifted in the exhilarating process, the
game, of trading.

But with respect to privacy we have been allowed to fool
ourselves---or rather, we have allowed our lawyers to fool
themselves and them to fool everybody else---into the conclusion
that what is actually a subject of environmental regulation is a
mere matter of bilateral bargaining. A moment's consideration of
the facts will show that this is completely not true.

Of course we acquired this theory not by accident. We acquired
this theory because tens of billions of dollars in wealth had been
put in the pockets of people who wanted us to believe it.

And on the superstructure that came from that base---that is,
fooling us into the belief that privacy was not a subject of
environmental concern---environmental devastation was produced by
the ceaseless pursuit of profit in every legal way imaginable.
Which of course is more ways than there ought to be, once
appropriate ecological restraints either have been lifted or have
never been imposed.
http://snowdenandthefuture.info/PartIII.html

Känner mig osäker på om någon i Sverige pratat om intigreitet på detta sätt? Jag kan inte komma på nån. Nicklas Lundblad kanske? Ramberg? Fleischer Paf?

Har vi några partipoloitiskt obunda tänkare på området?

Nån som vill prataomdet på CCC?

//Erik