Nu huh! They cain't get me if I cryptify things!

Parliamentary democracy has no inherent guarantees of "justice", "fairness", "equality" or any other value you may favor. Parliaments are composed of people who vote, and voting in and of itself certainly doesn't always result in The Good. Just ask Ireland.

Michael Shelden, author of “Orwell: The Authorized Biography,”  that  is just like the book.

Who's supposing that? The problems created by government bureaucracies persist for decades after they're created. The reason to dismantle a bureaucracy is to prevent that instance of problem creation from creating even more problems.


There are more excellent cartoons at and

Two proverbs say it best:  ("Who watches the watchers?") and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

It's not exactly an all-out lie, either. You might not literally be a business, but when it comes to your bank accounts, your notes on how to fill out your IRS forms, your exchange with your lawyer on some current court case, etc. etc., it *is* a financial interest of yours to keep the data private.


UK gov issued 250k phone tap licences in nine months

Security is a need that we all have and privacy is seen as a "bonus". What people don't realize is that when they give up privacy then they will ultimately become less secure. The difference is that the "enemy" changes. It may not be terrorist any longer now it is the government or the rogue elements within government.

Another thought struck me when I was reading your post.

A future in which privacy would face constant assault was so alien to the framers of the Constitution that it never occurred to them to call out privacy as an explicit right. Privacy was inherent to the nobility of their being and their cause. Of course being watched in your own home was unreasonable. Watching at all was an act so unseemly as to be inconceivable among gentlemen in their day. You watched convicted criminals, not free citizens. You ruled your own home. It's intrinsic to the concept of liberty.

@Tom Mat never said how the images got there ;-)

If you set up the false dichotomy, of course people will choose security over privacy -- especially if you scare them first. But it's still a false dichotomy. There is no security without privacy. And liberty requires both security and privacy. The famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin reads: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's also true that those who would give up privacy for security are likely to end up with neither.

"If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes, constantly fearful that -- either now or in the uncertain future -- patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private and innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable.

Well said. As you know, this is not a new phenomenon:

I was watching the first series of the West Wing (S01E09) at the weekend, and, when considering Supreme Court nominees they say "Privacy will be the great battle of the next decades". That was 1999. They were right. And they knew it before September 11th.