[pp.int.general] Of State and Main (I can't come up withabetter subject)

[Reinier Bakels]

> I did not say I was against the usage of human rights arguments in a 
> pirate manifesto, I said that I was against the endlessly verbose and 
> legalistic discussion on this mailing list.
>
> For the record, I have nothing against the use of a human rights  argument 
> when it comes to the Pirate Party. I agree with you that the  usage of 
> human rights arguments when it comes to justifying copyright  reform is 
> problematic. However, it's certainly valuable to use human  right 
> arguments against stuff like mass surveillance (Data Retention  Directive 
> et cetera), which at least I believe should be a core issue  in a PPI 
> manifesto.
>
> I believe, as is the position of the Swedish Pirate Party, that  imaginary 
> property reform is secondary to requirements for  communications secrecy, 
> general privacy, and generally not living in a  police state. And it is 
> much more useful to discuss human rights  issues out of that perspective 
> than to blather on endlessly about  relatively trivial issues such as the 
> moral rights of authors.

Perhaps you are right that it wrong to try to be convincing with more words 
if a few words don't convince you ... So let me get right to the point.

In my perception, it is pretty common for politicians to argue that he human 
rights of safety and protection of human integrity (etc.) in the current 
timeframe require pervasive surveillance, inclunding the infamous FRA 
programme. And admittedly they are not entirely wrong! It is the balance 
that matters, and it is a political matter to decide on a "proper" balance. 
Furthermore, in politics, being right does not mean that your argument is 
accepted - and only the latter counts. Rather than trying harder persisting 
in the same argument, it may be advisable to look for more effective 
arguments ... seel below.

In my perception, it is (therefore) much more useful to address specific, 
concrete issues rather than (indeed) philosophical arguments from human 
rights? To give just a handful examples 1) ex-post analysis of actual 
terrorist attacks shows that thety would not have been prevented by more 
surveillance - actually the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented if the 
various agencies would have cooperated more closely to evaluate the 
*available* data 2) unlike proponents of mass surveillance usually argue, 
innocent citizens are likely to suffer, not just because of the intangible 
discomfort of "being watched", but also due to the risk of "false 
positives", by fraud or mistakes.

I think this is a core issue of our strategy.

reinier