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

[Erik Lönroth]

If Julian was not accused of rape. Would we support him?

If you hesitate for a second, I believe that he is already guilty.

/Erik

2010/12/2 Radosław Nadstawny <radoslaw.nadstawny at o2.pl>:
> 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.
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>