Re: Government Noses

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Brian Beesley writes:
> > > Governments should
> > > keep their noses out of private conversations, full stop. 
> >
> > Which private conversations do you mean?
>
> All of them.
> > Do you mean the private conversations of those suspected of involvement in
> > serious crime and terrorism? 
>
> Yes. I think the risk posed by these private conversations is somewhat less 
> than the risk imposed by having Government agencies overhearing all private 
> conversations. 
>
> > Do you think not "poking a nose in" would
> > better serve the public interest?

> If I were a benefit claimant who mowed my neighbour's lawn, then I might be 
> worried about the Government overhearing a conversation about a lawnmower 
> extension lead. If you were to catch me actually in the act of taking money 
> for mowing someone else's lawn, then that's a fair cop, guv, but (mis)use of 
> "intelligence" information which might have an entirely innocent explanation 
> is quite another matter - perhaps I'm going to cut my own lawn, or perhaps I 
> cut my elderly neighbour's lawn for no charge as an act of charity. 
The trouble is Simon, that the recent Government advertising compaign aginst 
homelessness glorified in making the citizens - all of them - afraid of the 
power of government to see everything read everything hera everything and 
generally - nothing is left private anymore. 

It is a disgraceful campaign, and it uses exactly the fear you ridicule as 
an implicit threat against anybody who might one day come up against the 
government. 

Benefit claimants individually are _not_ generally fraudsters, and when they 
are they are not serious crime, but they are all made to feel cheap and of 
nil-value by your employer's advertising. 

The paranoia you ridicule is exactly encouraged and fostered by the civil 
servant who implemented the campaign. 


--
David Swarbrick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.lawindexpro.co.uk Tel: +44 (0)1484 384767