🚀 go-pugleaf

(In response to Bill Daul's previous note on 'sensitive information')

This is an incredibly complex issue, so I venture some random reactions:

1. Despite the multiplicity of networks, many machines still can't speak
to each other.  Compatibility between most systems is certainly in the
far-off future, and I believe this, as a technological impediment, has had
and will continue to have important effect as a deterrent on governmental
surveillance of computer activity and surveillance through
computers.

2. The nature of computer technology, on the other hand, lends itself
to monitoring in ways that other communication technologies don't.

3. Conspiracy theories will always run up against that most
consistent of human traits: fallibility.  So what are they going to do
with all this surveillance information even if they collect it?

4. In any case, our society is already very extensively surveyed
by groups such as the FBI.  Computer surveillance will
simply be an extension of a policy that is long-established in our
social system.

5. The consequences of all this for our personal liberties merits serious
consideration of the enforcement and development of constitutional and
social barriers to computer surveillance.  Perhaps we need a new
version of the Bill of Rights.  In any case, as in the case of Richard
Nixon, I'm sure the founding fathers had no idea...