Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

High-Tech Surveillance's First Target: Suffragettes

Posted by michael on from the smile-for-the-camera dept.

The BBC has an article, funny because the time that has passed but extremely serious at the time, about the efforts of the British government to keep an eye on women's suffrage advocates.

2 of 45 comments (clear)

  1. Funny? Ohh... I get it.... by pwagland · · Score: 4, Insightful
    How about we change that blurb to:
    The blahblah chronicle has an article, funny because [of] the time that has passed, but extremely serious at the time, about the efforts of the South African government to keep an eye on black rights advocates.
    What?!?

    How could that possibly be not funny?!?

    Oh I get it... we're still meant to laugh at women and their attempts to get equal rights. Doh! I should of guessed earlier!!!

    I'm sorry, but this is just as serious now, as it was back then... and a timely reminder that the government cannot be trusted to respect the privacy of the citizens that make their constituency. Think about it...

  2. Re:This is something to really ponder. by mellon · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Not at all! The ACLU frequently rights against civil rights. In California, they led the opposition against racist university admissions (arguing that it is OK to punish individuals for their skin color in the name of "diversity"). They have an entire division devoted to punishing people for having the wrong skin color. (shows how the ACLU opposes due process)

    Overt racial quotas to fight covert racism. A case can be made either way. If you don't like it, join the EFF or something. I said "organizations." I happen to think that the ACLU is a great example. If you don't, vote with your feet.

    Elsewhere, the ACLU fights to censor the speech of individuals who happen to use religious terminology in their speech. (shows how the ACLU opposes the first amendment).

    Here you get no sympathy from me. The ACLU fights to prevent government-sponsored religious speech, particularly when it favors a particular religion. If you are serious about your religion, you should be all in favor of this.

    Chances are that 300 years ago, it was illegal in most parts of Europe for you to practice whatever religion you practice. It's still probably illegal to talk about it in many countries around the world, or if not, it'll get you on surveillance lists here in the states.

    For example, I know of several countries, some of which you might even otherwise enjoy visiting, where merely discussing Christianity in a positive light with a citizen of that country can land you in jail for five years.

    When municipalities here in the U.S. use government facilities to promote religion, they are stepping to the edge of the slippery slope that leads to just that sort of law. If you enjoy the freedom to practice your religion, you might want to think twice about getting upset about people who fight to prevent that.