[pp.int.general] Support for Julian Assange and Wikileaks

[Boris Turovskiy]

Hi Radoslaw,
> In my opinion, there are too many rules protecting those who break
> other, more basic rules. They lead to situations in which a person can
> break the law freely, because in order to prove his crime, one would
> need to break the law himself.
Well, that is the drawback of a legal culture based on the assumption of
innocence - some criminals do get away. However, it hasn't been designed
that way without good reason: the philosophy behind it is that it's
better to let a criminal walk free than to falsely accuse an innocent.
Many regulations stem from that idea, for example that police cannot
simply search a home without a warrant (and if they do, the evidence
obtained is invalid).
One may argue where the line should be drawn, but I think you'll agree
to the horrible implications of switching to a legal system with the
reverse foundation ("better to imprison an innocent than to let a
criminal walk").

> Just like you wouldn't expect privacy at your workplace,
Wouldn't I? There have been quite a few cases in Germany in the last
several years dealing exactly with the topic on what measure of privacy
an employee can expect at their workplace. For example, by high court
ruling video surveillance by the employer has been strictly regulated so
that the employer can only put video surveillance when it is justified
by security considerations, and they must warn the employees of this
surveillance; thus, hidden cameras e.g. in bathrooms and changing rooms
are prohibited. Also, the employer has to treat the employees' personal
data with confidentiality, meaning that for the cases where the employer
does have a right of surveillance, the results have to be kept in-house
and not passed to third parties.

> the officials shouldn't expect privacy while carrying out their public responsibilities.
I think there are two different aspects which are getting confused when
talking about transparency of politicians:
1. More data related to government activities should be open to the
public than is now the case
2. Politicians should be monitored more closely to prevent corruption
and abuse of power
I agree with the first notion. The regulations and guidelines as to what
can be labeled "secret" or "confidential" regarding government documents
should be reviewed, and the "default setting" should be that they are
public unless there's specific reason to make them restricted (and even
restricted data has to be subjected to more possibilities of
cross-checking, with very few exceptions like secret agents' personnel
files or operational details which have to be kept as tight as possible).
I cannot, however, agree with the second line of argument because it
reminds me uncomfortable of the rhetoric used for establishing all the
surveillance mechanisms we're fighting against (like data retention). I
can't support the notion that all politicians should be considered
potentially corrupt any more than I can agree that every citizen should
be considered a potential terrorist, any taxpayer a potential tax evader
or any social security beneficiary a potential rip-off.


Best regards,
Boris