On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 04:54:09PM -0400, grarpamp wrote: > [1] Another question may be, in what jurisdictions are links > themselves illegal? > > > > Please do your best to ensure that we can build a world without > > surveillance, without panopticon, and with the basic human right to > > privacy defended and respected by technology and people. > > We may develop such technological capability, but it's naught without > laws that, for instance, forbid business, government and even people > from collecting you. You must regain/hold the legal right to be > your own broker and sole authority against infringement otherwise. > Encoding basic 'privacy' rights in law may be easier achieve than > encoding/battling for them in tech without backing of law. Rather, > support law with tech. Tech without law is but wish/direction for > law to move, or a parallel. The Law is always referred to past experiences, but it is used to think and manage present situations. It has some similarity with code, but it's interpreter is human, not machine, and is always capable of producing output in unexpected ways, with no correlation to changes in Law text input. So the problem as I see it, is not adapting the Law to nowadays needs, but preserving our rights on the net as much as outside it. And this problem is huge since we couldn't maintain much of our rights in the traditional world. The old interpreter is kept old and always tends to be part of the conservative minority of our kind. The net presented itself as a possibility to change our traditions, but power structures showed themselves much more willing to maintain and expand their control over netcitizens who just wish to open windows to dreams and forgetfulness.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk