well, i have to say this is an ironic twist in this case, specifically since wikileaks' stated intention is to promote greater transparency. what the courts have basically said here, is that: pursuant to legitimate investigations by the government (and what investigations are legitimate are decided on a case-by-case basis through the court system), users of computer networks can have no expectation of privacy since they voluntarily disclosed the information to a third party, like twitter or a bank. this brings me back to my distrust of a computer network that can observe our every move and search. can we live with this trade-off in privacy for the benefits of the internet's convenience. it seems that people are generally answering yes. i'm not so sure anymore.
well, i have to say this is an ironic twist in this case, specifically since wikileaks' stated intention is to promote greater transparency. what the courts have basically said here, is that: pursuant to legitimate investigations by the government (and what investigations are legitimate are decided on a case-by-case basis through the court system), users of computer networks can have no expectation of privacy since they voluntarily disclosed the information to a third party, like twitter or a bank. this brings me back to my distrust of a computer network that can observe our every move and search. can we live with this trade-off in privacy for the benefits of the internet's convenience. it seems that people are generally answering yes. i'm not so sure anymore.
ReplyDelete