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

[Radosław Nadstawny]

On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 18:16:07 +0100
Boris Turovskiy <tourovski at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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").
> 

I didn't suggest anything like that. I was referring mainly to various
officials, not ordinary citizens. I think that it is the way it is
because governments always try to screen themselves from
responsibility. And that's why they should be made more transparent and
thus accountable.

> > 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.

Don't you think that employers should have the right to know what their
employees are doing at work? I don't mean surveillance in toilets, I
mean separating private issues from work. If you have something that
you don't want your employer to know about, you don't do it at work.
Isn't is simple enough? Of course, employers should make it clear where
and when they might be watching you.

> > 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.

I think that wherever secrets are involved in operation of government,
there is a high risk of corruption. So I agree that as little as
possible should be labeled "confidential". The cross-checking would
ensure that either everything's under control or the whole structure is
corrupt (unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be that unlikely).

I also agree that being a *politician* should not make a difference in
respecting someone's privacy. But as to government officials, I am not
that sure. Ideally, responsibility should be proportional to the power
held by given office. If you can not determine what the officials are
doing as part of their duty, how can you hold them accountable?

I'm not saying we should build another big brother house to put our
presidents and ministers in 24/7. I'm saying that there should be a
clear distinction between their duties as officials, and their private
affairs. When performing duties they should be monitored as closely as
possible (so that they can be held accountable for every word they say
"in office"), but in private their rights would be no different than
every other citizen's. Mixing of both should be considered fraud
comparable to buying things for private with tax money.


Of course, this is only an opinion, and I'm sure there's a room for
improvement, but I hope you get the idea.