<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 2 December 2010 21:31, Erik Lönroth <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:erik.lonroth@gmail.com">erik.lonroth@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
If Julian was not accused of rape. Would we support him?<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>I support all of his information policies and actions fully and whole-heartedly. But I get very hurt when people call Swedish women whores and cocksuckers when he is thought to have not been as respectful as they thought they deserved.<br>
<br>but it's really completely different issues. you can't mix the two. who's a saint? not even jesus managed to live his life non-violently, look at the temple.<br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
If you hesitate for a second, I believe that he is already guilty.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>it is obviously wrong to publish the name and picture of a person who is not yet convicted, because he then ends up getting convicted by the media and the readers of media rather than the court of law. also judges get affected by policies happening outside their sphere, as is seen quite clearly in the Pirate Bay case, for instance. TPB is judged exceptionally harshely because the judges are afraid of looking bad in front of the US. Potentially there's something similar here.<br>
<br>You're from Sweden right? You will remember the bondage case from a couple of years back that made a lot of people upset: a woman was drunk and drugged and dragged to an apartment by two men who violated her with bondage sex. She had previously had bondage sex with these two men, but this night she had protested. They did not care. Eventually there was a conviction, but I don't remember any names being published in that case even after the conviction despite it being covered extensively by media for almost two months.<br>
<br>You wonder what is different with. I blame Expressen, fucken tabloid and lack of press ethics bag of shite.<br> <br>/a<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
/Erik<br>
<br>
2010/12/2 Radosław Nadstawny <<a href="mailto:radoslaw.nadstawny@o2.pl">radoslaw.nadstawny@o2.pl</a>>:<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">> On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 18:16:07 +0100<br>
> Boris Turovskiy <<a href="mailto:tourovski@gmail.com">tourovski@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Hi Radoslaw,<br>
>> > In my opinion, there are too many rules protecting those who break<br>
>> > other, more basic rules. They lead to situations in which a person<br>
>> > can break the law freely, because in order to prove his crime, one<br>
>> > would need to break the law himself.<br>
>> Well, that is the drawback of a legal culture based on the assumption<br>
>> of innocence - some criminals do get away. However, it hasn't been<br>
>> designed that way without good reason: the philosophy behind it is<br>
>> that it's better to let a criminal walk free than to falsely accuse<br>
>> an innocent. Many regulations stem from that idea, for example that<br>
>> police cannot simply search a home without a warrant (and if they do,<br>
>> the evidence obtained is invalid).<br>
>> One may argue where the line should be drawn, but I think you'll agree<br>
>> to the horrible implications of switching to a legal system with the<br>
>> reverse foundation ("better to imprison an innocent than to let a<br>
>> criminal walk").<br>
>><br>
><br>
> I didn't suggest anything like that. I was referring mainly to various<br>
> officials, not ordinary citizens. I think that it is the way it is<br>
> because governments always try to screen themselves from<br>
> responsibility. And that's why they should be made more transparent and<br>
> thus accountable.<br>
><br>
>> > Just like you wouldn't expect privacy at your workplace,<br>
>> Wouldn't I? There have been quite a few cases in Germany in the last<br>
>> several years dealing exactly with the topic on what measure of<br>
>> privacy an employee can expect at their workplace. For example, by<br>
>> high court ruling video surveillance by the employer has been<br>
>> strictly regulated so that the employer can only put video<br>
>> surveillance when it is justified by security considerations, and<br>
>> they must warn the employees of this surveillance; thus, hidden<br>
>> cameras e.g. in bathrooms and changing rooms are prohibited. Also,<br>
>> the employer has to treat the employees' personal data with<br>
>> confidentiality, meaning that for the cases where the employer does<br>
>> have a right of surveillance, the results have to be kept in-house<br>
>> and not passed to third parties.<br>
><br>
> Don't you think that employers should have the right to know what their<br>
> employees are doing at work? I don't mean surveillance in toilets, I<br>
> mean separating private issues from work. If you have something that<br>
> you don't want your employer to know about, you don't do it at work.<br>
> Isn't is simple enough? Of course, employers should make it clear where<br>
> and when they might be watching you.<br>
><br>
>> > the officials shouldn't expect privacy while carrying out their<br>
>> > public responsibilities.<br>
>> I think there are two different aspects which are getting confused<br>
>> when talking about transparency of politicians:<br>
>> 1. More data related to government activities should be open to the<br>
>> public than is now the case<br>
>> 2. Politicians should be monitored more closely to prevent corruption<br>
>> and abuse of power<br>
>> I agree with the first notion. The regulations and guidelines as to<br>
>> what can be labeled "secret" or "confidential" regarding government<br>
>> documents should be reviewed, and the "default setting" should be<br>
>> that they are public unless there's specific reason to make them<br>
>> restricted (and even restricted data has to be subjected to more<br>
>> possibilities of cross-checking, with very few exceptions like secret<br>
>> agents' personnel files or operational details which have to be kept<br>
>> as tight as possible). I cannot, however, agree with the second line<br>
>> of argument because it reminds me uncomfortable of the rhetoric used<br>
>> for establishing all the surveillance mechanisms we're fighting<br>
>> against (like data retention). I can't support the notion that all<br>
>> politicians should be considered potentially corrupt any more than I<br>
>> can agree that every citizen should be considered a potential<br>
>> terrorist, any taxpayer a potential tax evader or any social security<br>
>> beneficiary a potential rip-off.<br>
><br>
> I think that wherever secrets are involved in operation of government,<br>
> there is a high risk of corruption. So I agree that as little as<br>
> possible should be labeled "confidential". The cross-checking would<br>
> ensure that either everything's under control or the whole structure is<br>
> corrupt (unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be that unlikely).<br>
><br>
> I also agree that being a *politician* should not make a difference in<br>
> respecting someone's privacy. But as to government officials, I am not<br>
> that sure. Ideally, responsibility should be proportional to the power<br>
> held by given office. If you can not determine what the officials are<br>
> doing as part of their duty, how can you hold them accountable?<br>
><br>
> I'm not saying we should build another big brother house to put our<br>
> presidents and ministers in 24/7. I'm saying that there should be a<br>
> clear distinction between their duties as officials, and their private<br>
> affairs. When performing duties they should be monitored as closely as<br>
> possible (so that they can be held accountable for every word they say<br>
> "in office"), but in private their rights would be no different than<br>
> every other citizen's. Mixing of both should be considered fraud<br>
> comparable to buying things for private with tax money.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Of course, this is only an opinion, and I'm sure there's a room for<br>
> improvement, but I hope you get the idea.<br>
> ____________________________________________________<br>
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br>
> <a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general" target="_blank">http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general</a><br>
><br>
____________________________________________________<br>
Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br>
<a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general" target="_blank">http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>