Yep, now we have the state to club us over the heads, figuratively speaking.
Cotty wrote:
On 17/10/05, Gonz, discombobulated, unleashed:
I guess the difficulty here is not that someone may overhear you saying
something, or see you when you accidentally expose something you didnt
want exposed. Its that it may be recorded, and here is the tricky part:
that it may be disseminated. Its the potential for massive abuse in
this last part which makes it difficult to draw a clear line between
privacy and freedom.
My point here would be the motive of the person overhearing, recording,
photographing. That motive is not for anyone to decide but a court of
law. True, if it gets to court then it's usually too late, and harm has
already been done in some form or other. That's a sad fact of life. But
the balance between privacy and freedom is a fine one, and on average
seems to work (here in the UK). There will always be blips swinging one
way or the other, and these anomalies become highlighted by the press.
But its miles better than walking around clubbing each other with sticks.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com
_____________________________
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
