The issue of whether there should be "opt in" or "opt out" privacy terms is critical. The use of "opt in" contractual terms promotes companies providing more carrots to get a bite from you.
The question is how large of a dragnet you cast. Here are a couple of trends that concern me though.
(1) I've increasing been hearing police forces say that minor non-violent offences are 'gateway crimes' for terrorism. While this is a very convenient way to try to apply anti-terrorism measures to all citizen's, the civil liberty implications terrify me.
(2) Once you start making the criteria more inclusive, other groups such as people with mental illness or such may be included.
(3) Overall, the increasing marginalization of more and more people will likely create a large legal underclass where people with unpopular political views may either (a) find themselves put or (b) worry that they'll eventually find themselves put. Meaning, such an arbtirary, non-transparent list -- butressed on by permanent retention practices -- could become a new tool for the state to exert political control on people.
A couple of thoughts.
1. Sadly various 'US no fly lists' are being used by airlines in countries that don't yet have their own list -- e.g. Canada -- in an attempt to reduce liability. Meaning, the implications of this article are greater than some might realize.
2. A key question about no-fly lists is the criteria used to put people on it. Ideally, it should be transparent so, for instance, everyone out there with a criminal record isn't concerned every time they get on a plane that law enforcement officials will descend upon them. Beyond the quota issue, this article points to a series of systemic problems relating to the criteria used to make these lists, which from my reading seem to be:
a. arbitrary
b. left to individual discretion
c. without oversight or review checks and balances
d. unappealable, regardless of how flimsy the evidence is.
As more and more countries draft their own no-fly lists, such issues are likely to grow in importance and become bigger problems within the international (rather just American) political sphere.
Slashdot Mirror
The issue of whether there should be "opt in" or "opt out" privacy terms is critical. The use of "opt in" contractual terms promotes companies providing more carrots to get a bite from you.
I haven't seen anyone mention the summer camp corporation yet. Surely, the camp counselor was an employee and therefore they could be liable too, no?
The question is how large of a dragnet you cast. Here are a couple of trends that concern me though.
(1) I've increasing been hearing police forces say that minor non-violent offences are 'gateway crimes' for terrorism. While this is a very convenient way to try to apply anti-terrorism measures to all citizen's, the civil liberty implications terrify me.
(2) Once you start making the criteria more inclusive, other groups such as people with mental illness or such may be included.
(3) Overall, the increasing marginalization of more and more people will likely create a large legal underclass where people with unpopular political views may either (a) find themselves put or (b) worry that they'll eventually find themselves put. Meaning, such an arbtirary, non-transparent list -- butressed on by permanent retention practices -- could become a new tool for the state to exert political control on people.
A couple of thoughts. 1. Sadly various 'US no fly lists' are being used by airlines in countries that don't yet have their own list -- e.g. Canada -- in an attempt to reduce liability. Meaning, the implications of this article are greater than some might realize. 2. A key question about no-fly lists is the criteria used to put people on it. Ideally, it should be transparent so, for instance, everyone out there with a criminal record isn't concerned every time they get on a plane that law enforcement officials will descend upon them. Beyond the quota issue, this article points to a series of systemic problems relating to the criteria used to make these lists, which from my reading seem to be: a. arbitrary b. left to individual discretion c. without oversight or review checks and balances d. unappealable, regardless of how flimsy the evidence is. As more and more countries draft their own no-fly lists, such issues are likely to grow in importance and become bigger problems within the international (rather just American) political sphere.