Privacy, security and public opinion

[Systems Dept]

Owen Lewis wrote:
> From: "Peter Mitchell" <pete@dmed.demon.co.uk>
> 
> > Essentially the authorities are saying, "We need these powers. But we
> > can't tell you why we need them, even though we may use them against
> > you, citizen, at some time. You must just trust us to use them in a way
> > of which you would approve."
> >
> > That attitude is not appropriate in a supposedly democratic society.
> 
> You may say so. Now come up with an alternative.
> 

It was in my earlier posting. When the government proposes a law, it
must produce its *real* reasons to anyone who cares to ask for them. If
it does not wish to publish the real reasons, and as a result the
legislation does not meet with the approval of parliament and the
public, then the proposed legislation must be scrapped, though the sky
fall. In fact, of course, the sky will not fall.


> I'd be among the first to say that it is not perfect but I'm darned if I can
> suggest more that marginal improvements. 
> If we had some ruling class, self
> perpetuating and hermetically sealed off from the rest of us, then yes there
> would be a real danger. However, I believe that any real danger is very
> largely nullified by the fact that anyone who is bright enough, determined
> enough and does not have a serious criminal record, can get themselve into a
> position where they either know what does go on or else even get to direct
> what does go on. In short, there should be nothing to hide in a system which
> is open to operation and management by the people in some ever
> changing set of combinations.


People only reach policy-making positions in any organisation if they
conform to the standards set by those already in control. If they are
not already inclined to conform, they either learn to do so, or are
selected out before they reach policy-making level. .


> 
> If by 'democratic society' you mean a society in which every person should
> be informed of every detail in regard to their governance, I point out that
> to evaluate meaningfully information in many different areas may take years
> of training and some experience. What is the value of an opinion based on
> ignorance? 


I too am happy to delegate policy-making to the experts, provided I can
examine what they are doing and intervene if I so choose. Public
scrutiny is the one and only key to proper governance. If we are misled
as to the reasons for a policy, we cannot effectively scrutinise it. 


> I don't know how a refuse collection, recycling and disposal
> facility works. I therefore would not wish to push any opinion of mine in
> regard to whether such facilities should operate in this that or the other
> way. If you like, I place a limited trust in those who should know more
> about it to make those decisions for me, the limits of the trust being reasonably
> assured by an unfettered right to elect and un-elect, and at not infrequent
> intervals, those who do make the decisions.
> 

If I don't know what they are doing, then I have no idea whether I
should vote for them or not.  In such circumstances my vote is of no
value. 

Also remember that much of the content of these policy decisions is
moral, on which policymakers have no special claim to expertise, yet
still prefer not to consult us. Vide the Belgrano affair. Or Chevaline.
Or telephone tapping generally, for that matter. 

> >If they do not explain to us exactly why they want these powers, then they
> > cannot obtain our informed consent, and so they have no right to ask for
> > them.
> 
> Then how do you propose that the informed consent of the populace entire
> shall be given to each and every matter affecting their governance? 


It is not necessary that every individual give explicit consent, only
that the relevant information be easily available to all. Those who
aren't interested can then leave the debate to others who are. 

 
--
Pete Mitchell