Europe to crack down on ‘passive drinking’, says leaked report

Our reporter in Brussels reveals that EC officials are plotting to make
drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.

Friday 26 May 2006, Bruno Waterfield

The campaigns to combat the effects of ‘passive smoking’ are widely
credited for Europe’s growing number of smoking bans. Now alcohol is in
the sights of the public health lobbyists, and they have invented the
concept of ‘passive drinking’ as their killer argument.

I have seen a leaked draft report for the European Commission, which is
due to be published some time in June. It makes claims about the high
environmental or social toll of alcohol, the ‘harm done by someone
else’s drinking’. The report is likely to inform proposals for a
European Union alcohol strategy later this year.

Dr Peter Anderson, the report’s lead author, who has a background in the
World Health Organisation (WHO) and plays a leading role in Tobacco Free
Initiative Europe, tells me that the concept of social harm takes the
alcohol debate beyond the traditional limits of individual choice and
addiction. ‘You can make the argument that what an individual drinks is
up to them, provided they understand what they are doing and bearing in
mind that alcohol is a dependency-producing drug…. But when you talk
about harm to others then that is a societal concern and justification
for doing something about it. I think that is an important argument. If
there was not harm to others then the argument gets a little less
powerful’ (1).

The draft report doesn’t mince its words when it comes to estimating the
social harms of alcohol. ‘The total tangible cost of alcohol to EU
society in 2003 was estimated to be €125bn (€79bn-€220bn), equivalent to
1.3 per cent GDP, and which is roughly the same value as that found
recently for tobacco.’ (2) The report further highlights the broader
social cost of drinking, with the proviso that ‘these estimates are
subject to a wide margin of error, [and] they are likely to be an
underestimate of the true gross social cost of alcohol’.

continued ...
<http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/324/>

= = = = = =
Comment: Just in case there are any jokers out there who doubt this:
1) Prof. Nutt (member of the ACMD) recently said that alcohol was more
dangerous than Ecstasy. Note that Ecstasy is a class A drug.
<http://www.ourrights.0catch.com/Tale-of-two-Es.html>
<http://jop.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/20/3/315>
2) In giving evidence before a parliamentary committee Prof. Rawlins
(ACMD Chairman) said that, if it were to be an illegal drug, alcohol
would be classed on the borderline between class A and B.
<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/uc900-ii/uc90002.htm>
search for "Q127" and read down to Q129.

Note 2: ACMD = "Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs" - the
government committee responsible for deciding upon the classifications
of illegal drugs.

In uk.legal Jasbird > wrote:
> Europe to crack down on ?passive drinking?, says leaked report

> Our reporter in Brussels reveals that EC officials are plotting to make
> drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.

Fat chance. Especially in countries such as France and Spain where wine
on the table is the norm of most meals.

Axel

On Sat, 27 May 2006 11:24:10 GMT, wrote:

>In uk.legal Jasbird > wrote:
>> Europe to crack down on ?passive drinking?, says leaked report
>
>> Our reporter in Brussels reveals that EC officials are plotting to make
>> drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.
>
>Fat chance. Especially in countries such as France and Spain where wine
>on the table is the norm of most meals.

Just a few years ago smoking was the norm and fully accepted except by
a few eccentrics.

--
Brave New Britain

wrote:
> In uk.legal Jasbird > wrote:
>
>>Europe to crack down on ?passive drinking?, says leaked report
>
>
>
>>Our reporter in Brussels reveals that EC officials are plotting to make
>>drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.
>
>
> Fat chance. Especially in countries such as France and Spain where wine
> on the table is the norm of most meals.
>
> Axel
>


Many studies have shown that moderate drinking increases life span and
reduces risk of coronaries. So it doesn't make that much sense to stop
something that is healthy, even for a European bureaucrat.

john2

On Sat, 27 May 2006 14:23:24 +0100, john2 > wrote:

wrote:
>> In uk.legal Jasbird > wrote:
>>
>>>Europe to crack down on ?passive drinking?, says leaked report
>>
>>>Our reporter in Brussels reveals that EC officials are plotting to make
>>>drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.
>>
>> Fat chance. Especially in countries such as France and Spain where wine
>> on the table is the norm of most meals.
>>
>> Axel
>
>Many studies have shown that moderate drinking increases life span and
>reduces risk of coronaries. So it doesn't make that much sense to stop
>something that is healthy, even for a European bureaucrat.
>
>john2

No doubt moderate cocaine use has a whole load of advantages going for
it too. (The President of Bolivia, an ex-cocaine farmer, would certainly
agree with that statement)

The problems a
1) Many people who can't limit their drinking. How do we protect the
vulnerable?
2) What about the peripheral damage caused by boozing. Car accident
victims, children of broken homes, etc. You saw the numbers? The
fallout costs of booze on European society are estimated at : 240
(minimum) to 980 billion Euros per year; which is many thousands times
greater than the cost of Ecstasy use. [Ecstasy is a class A drug]

You think you can argue for freedom to booze on the basis that "moderate
drinking increases life span and reduces risk of coronaries" - you
haven't a hope in hell. It's time you came up with some better
arguments. I suggest you try arguing for "I drink because I like it and
the government have no right to tell me what to do".

On Sat, 27 May 2006 14:23:24 +0100, john2 wrote:

> Many studies have shown that moderate drinking increases life span and
> reduces risk of coronaries.

Except those studies were flawed.

<http://groups.google.com/group/uk.politics.drugs/msg/d8e6f980b32e35a4?&hl=en>

--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK

"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"

Jasbird wrote:
> On Sat, 27 May 2006 14:23:24 +0100, john2 > wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >> In uk.legal Jasbird > wrote:
> >>
> >>>Europe to crack down on ?passive drinking?, says leaked report
> >>
> >>>Our reporter in Brussels reveals that EC officials are plotting to make
> >>>drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.
> >>
> >> Fat chance. Especially in countries such as France and Spain where wine
> >> on the table is the norm of most meals.
> >>
> >> Axel
> >
> >Many studies have shown that moderate drinking increases life span and
> >reduces risk of coronaries. So it doesn't make that much sense to stop
> >something that is healthy, even for a European bureaucrat.
> >
> >john2
>
> No doubt moderate cocaine use has a whole load of advantages going for
> it too. (The President of Bolivia, an ex-cocaine farmer, would certainly
> agree with that statement)
>
> The problems a
> 1) Many people who can't limit their drinking. How do we protect the
> vulnerable?
> 2) What about the peripheral damage caused by boozing. Car accident
> victims, children of broken homes, etc. You saw the numbers? The
> fallout costs of booze on European society are estimated at : 240
> (minimum) to 980 billion Euros per year; which is many thousands times
> greater than the cost of Ecstasy use. [Ecstasy is a class A drug]
>
> You think you can argue for freedom to booze on the basis that "moderate
> drinking increases life span and reduces risk of coronaries" - you
> haven't a hope in hell. It's time you came up with some better
> arguments. I suggest you try arguing for "I drink because I like it and
> the government have no right to tell me what to do".

People can be given a kind of creditcard linked to their ID that keeps
track of how
many drinks they have had every day and this can be used to ensure
people cannot drink more than what can be considered health (say 2 to 4
alcohol beverages a day).
Alternatively, people could be free to drink as much as they like
provided they have a alcohol-allowed card, but as soon as they screw up
(get involved in alcohol-related accidents, etc..), they can have their
card revoked. Such a card can also be used to enforce age limits on
drinking more strictly.
I'm not necessarily against such a card system (provided it's fair and
reliable), just like it's used in some cases to prevent soccer
hooligans from misbehaving repeatedly.
Where I live (in the Netherlands), carrying ID in public at all times
is already mandatory and it would be a small step to link it to a
licence-system to engage in certain risky activities (like drinking,
driving or using soft-drugs).
'Social security systems' like these can also be seen as a powerful
argument for a completely transparant and fully accountable government
in order to prevent abuse of technology that invades public privacy.

In uk.legal name > wrote:

> People can be given a kind of creditcard linked to their ID that keeps
> track of how
> many drinks they have had every day and this can be used to ensure
> people cannot drink more than what can be considered health (say 2 to 4
> alcohol beverages a day).
> Alternatively, people could be free to drink as much as they like
> provided they have a alcohol-allowed card, but as soon as they screw up
> (get involved in alcohol-related accidents, etc..), they can have their
> card revoked. Such a card can also be used to enforce age limits on
> drinking more strictly.
> I'm not necessarily against such a card system (provided it's fair and
> reliable), just like it's used in some cases to prevent soccer
> hooligans from misbehaving repeatedly.

Interesting proposal. However it would only tend to encourage
home brewing and distilling.

Probably linked to organised crime which is what happened when
America implemented total prohibition.

Axel

On Sat, 27 May 2006 18:05:56 GMT, wrote:

>In uk.legal name > wrote:
>
>> People can be given a kind of creditcard linked to their ID that keeps
>> track of how
>> many drinks they have had every day and this can be used to ensure
>> people cannot drink more than what can be considered health (say 2 to 4
>> alcohol beverages a day).
>> Alternatively, people could be free to drink as much as they like
>> provided they have a alcohol-allowed card, but as soon as they screw up
>> (get involved in alcohol-related accidents, etc..), they can have their
>> card revoked. Such a card can also be used to enforce age limits on
>> drinking more strictly.
>> I'm not necessarily against such a card system (provided it's fair and
>> reliable), just like it's used in some cases to prevent soccer
>> hooligans from misbehaving repeatedly.
>
>Interesting proposal. However it would only tend to encourage
>home brewing and distilling.
>
>Probably linked to organised crime which is what happened when
>America implemented total prohibition.
>
>Axel

But we already have the same thing with cannabis - w.r.t. growing
cannabis. So if cannabis is illegal why shouldn't alcohol be? [Given
that booze is a far more dangerous drug].

This doesn't mean to say criminalisation is going to happen. However I
think we can look at far more restrictions than we have now. Starting
with mandatory warnings on drinks bottles [similar to the blatant
notices on tobacco packets in, say, Canada], total advertising bans,
...., maybe some of the restrictions which have already happened in
places like Sweden.

If the debate is stuck at the level of utilitarianism and harm the
result will be more restrictions. Note how 'john2' actually made the
startling claim that booze was beneficial (ho, ho, ho) and 'name'
proposed linking our daily booze intake to a massive system of state
spying. If people are incapable of arguing for their rights we can only
have more clamp-downs.

In uk.legal name > wrote:

> I'm all for freedom, but that also means I'm in favor of mechanisms to
> ensure that
> people's actions (like binge drinking and behaving irresponsible as a
> direct consequence of that) don't infringe upon the freedom of others.
> If a system like ID cards is effective to ensure that people are only
> allowed to
> do as they please as long as their actions do not infringe upon the
> freedom of others, I don't see what's your objection against this.

Exactly how would ID cards do this - stopping binge drinking for
example??

> Granting the government greater powers (like keeping track of people
> with ID cards, etc.) comes with a responsibility for the government to
> ensure complete transparancy and full accountability in order to
> prevent abuse of such powers. Alternatively, we can have a society
> where terrorists have enough privacy so they can blow themselves up in
> public or fly planes into buildings. If we can prevent this by giving
> up privacy, I think it's a price many are willing to pay. Personally I
> don't even understand why my DNA isn't recorded in my passport yet and
> why there isn't an international genedatabase to track down terrorists,
> murderers, rapists and other criminals. **** privacy. We can have
> freedom without privacy.

Can you explain how the carrying an ID card would have done anything to
prevent the suicide bombers in London.

The same goes for hijacking a plane and doing whatever with it -
to get on a plane requires ID so it does not prevent such actions.

Axel

wrote:
> In uk.legal name > wrote:
>
> > I'm all for freedom, but that also means I'm in favor of mechanisms to
> > ensure that
> > people's actions (like binge drinking and behaving irresponsible as a
> > direct consequence of that) don't infringe upon the freedom of others.
> > If a system like ID cards is effective to ensure that people are only
> > allowed to
> > do as they please as long as their actions do not infringe upon the
> > freedom of others, I don't see what's your objection against this.
>
> Exactly how would ID cards do this - stopping binge drinking for
> example??

Stopping binge drinking is not the issue. The issue is stopping people
from misbehaving as a consequence of binge drinking. You can require
people to show their ID card whenever they buy alcohol and use some
kind of memory on the card to keep track of their record of misbehavior
under the influence of alcohol on the card. Once they have screwed up
one or more times under the influence of alcohol, you modify their card
so the next time they try to order alcohol people will not serve it to
them because they can be identified as people who are not able to
behave responsibly under the influence of alcohol by means of the
trackrecord in that respect stored on the card. Similar to how people
have their driver's licence revoked if they persist in reckless
driving.

>
> > Granting the government greater powers (like keeping track of people
> > with ID cards, etc.) comes with a responsibility for the government to
> > ensure complete transparancy and full accountability in order to
> > prevent abuse of such powers. Alternatively, we can have a society
> > where terrorists have enough privacy so they can blow themselves up in
> > public or fly planes into buildings. If we can prevent this by giving
> > up privacy, I think it's a price many are willing to pay. Personally I
> > don't even understand why my DNA isn't recorded in my passport yet and
> > why there isn't an international genedatabase to track down terrorists,
> > murderers, rapists and other criminals. **** privacy. We can have
> > freedom without privacy.
>
> Can you explain how the carrying an ID card would have done anything to
> prevent the suicide bombers in London.

Not just an ID card, but cameras everywhere. Artificial inteligence to
monitor people's behavior and notifying authorities in case it detects
anything suspicious.
Terrorist acts are not actions on impulse but things that require a lot
of preparation and planning. You can detect this because it will
involve unusual patterns of behavior compared to people involved in
normal activities.

>
> The same goes for hijacking a plane and doing whatever with it -
> to get on a plane requires ID so it does not prevent such actions.

ID cards by itself don't, but combined with profiling of what people
do, who they meet, etc. does.

>
> Axel

On 27 May 2006 13:05:05 -0700, "name" > wrote:

>
>Jasbird wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 May 2006 18:05:56 GMT, wrote:
>>
>> >In uk.legal name > wrote:
>> >
>> >> People can be given a kind of creditcard linked to their ID that keeps
>> >> track of how
>> >> many drinks they have had every day and this can be used to ensure
>> >> people cannot drink more than what can be considered health (say 2 to 4
>> >> alcohol beverages a day).
>> >> Alternatively, people could be free to drink as much as they like
>> >> provided they have a alcohol-allowed card, but as soon as they screw up
>> >> (get involved in alcohol-related accidents, etc..), they can have their
>> >> card revoked. Such a card can also be used to enforce age limits on
>> >> drinking more strictly.
>> >> I'm not necessarily against such a card system (provided it's fair and
>> >> reliable), just like it's used in some cases to prevent soccer
>> >> hooligans from misbehaving repeatedly.
>> >
>> >Interesting proposal. However it would only tend to encourage
>> >home brewing and distilling.
>> >
>> >Probably linked to organised crime which is what happened when
>> >America implemented total prohibition.
>> >
>> >Axel
>>
>> But we already have the same thing with cannabis - w.r.t. growing
>> cannabis. So if cannabis is illegal why shouldn't alcohol be? [Given
>> that booze is a far more dangerous drug].
>>
>> This doesn't mean to say criminalisation is going to happen. However I
>> think we can look at far more restrictions than we have now. Starting
>> with mandatory warnings on drinks bottles [similar to the blatant
>> notices on tobacco packets in, say, Canada], total advertising bans,
>> ..., maybe some of the restrictions which have already happened in
>> places like Sweden.
>>
>> If the debate is stuck at the level of utilitarianism and harm the
>> result will be more restrictions. Note how 'john2' actually made the
>> startling claim that booze was beneficial (ho, ho, ho) and 'name'
>> proposed linking our daily booze intake to a massive system of state
>> spying. If people are incapable of arguing for their rights we can only
>> have more clamp-downs.
>
>I'm all for freedom, but that also means I'm in favor of mechanisms to
>ensure that
>people's actions (like binge drinking and behaving irresponsible as a
>direct consequence of that) don't infringe upon the freedom of others.
>If a system like ID cards is effective to ensure that people are only
>allowed to do as they please as long as their actions do not infringe
>upon the freedom of others, I don't see what's your objection against this.

I object to the government monitoring me by checking my daily
consumption of booze. It's not that I'm a big boozer. I hardly drink at
all. It's just the principle. I can control my booze. I don't need a
government to watch over me as if I were a little child.

If you want to institute that as a penalty for people who have offended
while drinking - that may be a different matter - I would find it harder
to argue against that - but it should not be the rule.

>Granting the government greater powers (like keeping track of people
>with ID cards, etc.) comes with a responsibility for the government to
>ensure complete transparancy and full accountability in order to
>prevent abuse of such powers.

What? Now you want everyone else to see what I'm drinking too - as well
as Big Brother?

>Alternatively, we can have a society where terrorists have enough
>privacy so they can blow themselves up in public or fly planes into
>buildings. If we can prevent this by giving up privacy,

How did we move from a discussion of the government spying on my
drinking habits to one of terrorists? Why is it that terrorists are
played like a trump card to abolish civil rights like this?

We have a near civil war in Britain from 1971 to the late 1990s. 10000
people died during the IRA campaign. They didn't abolish privacy rights
then. So far less that 100 people have died from terrorist activity in
Britain this century. Yet you want to abolish privacy - why? Are you
really terrified of a few of mad Islamicists?

>I think it's a price many are willing to pay.

Idiots

>Personally I don't even understand why my DNA isn't recorded in
>my passport yet and why there isn't an international genedatabase
>to track down terrorists, murderers, rapists and other criminals.

In Britain they can't even manage to stop the illegal drug trade. Nor
can they be bothered to keep track of the "criminals" out on parole. So
what use would a database do them when their basic systems don't work?

>**** privacy. We can have freedom without privacy.

There is no such thing as freedom without privacy - cut out the double
speak.

In uk.legal name > wrote:
> Stopping binge drinking is not the issue. The issue is stopping people
> from misbehaving as a consequence of binge drinking. You can require
> people to show their ID card whenever they buy alcohol and use some
> kind of memory on the card to keep track of their record of misbehavior
> under the influence of alcohol on the card. Once they have screwed up
> one or more times under the influence of alcohol, you modify their card
> so the next time they try to order alcohol people will not serve it to
> them because they can be identified as people who are not able to
> behave responsibly under the influence of alcohol by means of the
> trackrecord in that respect stored on the card. Similar to how people
> have their driver's licence revoked if they persist in reckless
> driving.

Then the person concerned would only need to get a friend to buy a dozen
bottles of vodka or whatever for him.

>> Can you explain how the carrying an ID card would have done anything to
>> prevent the suicide bombers in London.

> Not just an ID card, but cameras everywhere. Artificial inteligence to
> monitor people's behavior and notifying authorities in case it detects
> anything suspicious.

There are cameras everywhere these days. Except inside peoples
houses... yet.

> Terrorist acts are not actions on impulse but things that require a lot
> of preparation and planning. You can detect this because it will
> involve unusual patterns of behavior compared to people involved in
> normal activities.

I suppose it could with intrusive surveillance of everyone.

But then you will just have the 'lone wolves' emerging a la the Shoe
Bomber.

>> The same goes for hijacking a plane and doing whatever with it -
>> to get on a plane requires ID so it does not prevent such actions.

> ID cards by itself don't, but combined with profiling of what people
> do, who they meet, etc. does.

Again intrusive surveillance. I am sure that *most* people would
very strongly object to such surveillance as a total outrage.
Especially when such surveillance would be combined with swooping
on and questioning people behaving suspiciously. I am sure a married
man taking lengths to avoid his wife finding out his mistress would
be love to be interrogated as to why he had been acting in the way he
did, probably with the others involved also being questioned.

Actually your ideas closely match those in _1984_ and the old
Communist countries when neighbours were expected to spy on each
other and even children on parents and teachers. And people would
report 'suspicious' activity (although then what counted as suspicious
activity was not terrorism) since if they did not do so and someone
else did, they might also be carted off for their failure to make
an accusation.

I for one would not live in such a country.

Axel

wrote:
> In uk.legal name > wrote:
> > Stopping binge drinking is not the issue. The issue is stopping people
> > from misbehaving as a consequence of binge drinking. You can require
> > people to show their ID card whenever they buy alcohol and use some
> > kind of memory on the card to keep track of their record of misbehavior
> > under the influence of alcohol on the card. Once they have screwed up
> > one or more times under the influence of alcohol, you modify their card
> > so the next time they try to order alcohol people will not serve it to
> > them because they can be identified as people who are not able to
> > behave responsibly under the influence of alcohol by means of the
> > trackrecord in that respect stored on the card. Similar to how people
> > have their driver's licence revoked if they persist in reckless
> > driving.
>
> Then the person concerned would only need to get a friend to buy a dozen
> bottles of vodka or whatever for him.

That means that friend would lose his right to buy booze as well, just
like when
he would buy a bottle of vodka for a 10 year old.

>
> >> Can you explain how the carrying an ID card would have done anything to
> >> prevent the suicide bombers in London.
>
> > Not just an ID card, but cameras everywhere. Artificial inteligence to
> > monitor people's behavior and notifying authorities in case it detects
> > anything suspicious.
>
> There are cameras everywhere these days. Except inside peoples
> houses... yet.

Insides people houses it's still on a voluntary basis. I don't really
mind cameras in public places. In fact I feel safer knowing that if
some prick decides to harass me in public, his face is captured on
camera and it should be easier to capture him. I reckon many more
criminals are caught with help of modern technology like DNA analysis
and camera surveillance.

>
> > Terrorist acts are not actions on impulse but things that require a lot
> > of preparation and planning. You can detect this because it will
> > involve unusual patterns of behavior compared to people involved in
> > normal activities.
>
> I suppose it could with intrusive surveillance of everyone.
>
> But then you will just have the 'lone wolves' emerging a la the Shoe
> Bomber.

I think there are very few terrorists who come up with their plans for
terrorism
in isolation from terroristic organizations.

>
> >> The same goes for hijacking a plane and doing whatever with it -
> >> to get on a plane requires ID so it does not prevent such actions.
>
> > ID cards by itself don't, but combined with profiling of what people
> > do, who they meet, etc. does.
>
> Again intrusive surveillance. I am sure that *most* people would
> very strongly object to such surveillance as a total outrage.

Depends whether or not the government is deemed trustworthy enough to
handle such responsibilities. At this moment I wouldn't trust them, but
I think the government ought to be more transparant and accountable
anyway.

> Especially when such surveillance would be combined with swooping
> on and questioning people behaving suspiciously. I am sure a married
> man taking lengths to avoid his wife finding out his mistress would
> be love to be interrogated as to why he had been acting in the way he
> did, probably with the others involved also being questioned.

How about someone living in the city buying massive amounts of
fertilizer with the intention of blowing up government buildings.
Wouldn't it be nice if the government kept an eye on such people in
case they find them to have links with extremist groups?

>
> Actually your ideas closely match those in _1984_ and the old
> Communist countries when neighbours were expected to spy on each
> other and even children on parents and teachers. And people would
> report 'suspicious' activity (although then what counted as suspicious
> activity was not terrorism) since if they did not do so and someone
> else did, they might also be carted off for their failure to make
> an accusation.

Except that in the "1984" scenario and former communist countries or
other totalitarian regimes there was no governmental transparancy or
accountability whatsoever. Technology that invades privacy is on the
rise anyway and there is little you can do about it. In the near future
people can have a camera built into their glasses or even their head
and record anything they experience. Wireless global communication
becomes practical and affordable. Society in the near future is
completely transformed by technology and this might require us to
rethink about notions like privacy.

>
> I for one would not live in such a country.
>
> Axel

On 27 May 2006 13:05:05 -0700, "name" > wrote:

>If we can prevent this by giving
>up privacy, I think it's a price many are willing to pay.

If we could prevent this by giving up cornflakes. I think it is a
price many would be willing to pay. The one is just as likely to be
effective as the other.

> Personally I
>don't even understand why my DNA isn't recorded in my passport yet and
>why there isn't an international genedatabase to track down terrorists,
>murderers, rapists and other criminals. **** privacy. We can have
>freedom without privacy.

You say that you are not concerned about your privacy. I don't
believe you. You can easily prove me wrong. Simply post all your
personal details in reply to my post. Name, address, telephone
numbers, bank details, who you work for, your employee number, salary,
pension details, medical history,and a summary of your present sexual
activities.

*Then* I will believe that you have no concerns about your privacy,
and also that you are a bit daft.

--
Cynic

On 27 May 2006 19:52:56 -0700, "name" > wrote:

>> If you want to institute that as a penalty for people who have offended
>> while drinking - that may be a different matter - I would find it harder
>> to argue against that - but it should not be the rule.

>Why not? It doesn't affect your freedom as long as you behave
>responsibly (even binge drinking can be considered responsible if you
>don't bother or harass anyone under influence).

So why don't you publish all your personal details to this newsgroup?
It will not affect your freedom.

The answer to that questuin may tell you why I don't want the
government to have easy access to my personal details.

--
Cynic

On Sun, 28 May 2006 10:15:18 +0100, Cynic > wrote:

>On 27 May 2006 13:05:05 -0700, "name" > wrote:
>
>>If we can prevent this by giving
>>up privacy, I think it's a price many are willing to pay.
>
>If we could prevent this by giving up cornflakes. I think it is a
>price many would be willing to pay. The one is just as likely to be
>effective as the other.
>
>> Personally I
>>don't even understand why my DNA isn't recorded in my passport yet and
>>why there isn't an international genedatabase to track down terrorists,
>>murderers, rapists and other criminals. **** privacy. We can have
>>freedom without privacy.
>
>You say that you are not concerned about your privacy. I don't
>believe you. You can easily prove me wrong. Simply post all your
>personal details in reply to my post. Name, address, telephone
>numbers, bank details, who you work for, your employee number, salary,
>pension details, medical history,and a summary of your present sexual
>activities.

And drug taking activities - including the names/addresses/phone nos. of
your dealer(s) (so that we can all score there too).

Also - tell us whether you've ever told a 'white lie' on a job
application form - we'd all be interested to read that.

>*Then* I will believe that you have no concerns about your privacy,
>and also that you are a bit daft.

"name" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jasbird wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 May 2006 14:23:24 +0100, john2 > wrote:
>>
>> wrote:
>> >> In uk.legal Jasbird > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Europe to crack down on ?passive drinking?, says leaked report
>> >>
>> >>>Our reporter in Brussels reveals that EC officials are plotting to
>> >>>make
>> >>>drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.
>> >>
>> >> Fat chance. Especially in countries such as France and Spain where
>> >> wine
>> >> on the table is the norm of most meals.
>> >>
>> >> Axel
>> >
>> >Many studies have shown that moderate drinking increases life span and
>> >reduces risk of coronaries. So it doesn't make that much sense to stop
>> >something that is healthy, even for a European bureaucrat.
>> >
>> >john2
>>
>> No doubt moderate cocaine use has a whole load of advantages going for
>> it too. (The President of Bolivia, an ex-cocaine farmer, would certainly
>> agree with that statement)
>>
>> The problems a
>> 1) Many people who can't limit their drinking. How do we protect the
>> vulnerable?
>> 2) What about the peripheral damage caused by boozing. Car accident
>> victims, children of broken homes, etc. You saw the numbers? The
>> fallout costs of booze on European society are estimated at : 240
>> (minimum) to 980 billion Euros per year; which is many thousands times
>> greater than the cost of Ecstasy use. [Ecstasy is a class A drug]
>>
>> You think you can argue for freedom to booze on the basis that "moderate
>> drinking increases life span and reduces risk of coronaries" - you
>> haven't a hope in hell. It's time you came up with some better
>> arguments. I suggest you try arguing for "I drink because I like it and
>> the government have no right to tell me what to do".
>
> People can be given a kind of creditcard linked to their ID that keeps
> track of how
> many drinks they have had every day and this can be used to ensure
> people cannot drink more than what can be considered health (say 2 to 4
> alcohol beverages a day).
> Alternatively, people could be free to drink as much as they like
> provided they have a alcohol-allowed card, but as soon as they screw up
> (get involved in alcohol-related accidents, etc..), they can have their
> card revoked. Such a card can also be used to enforce age limits on
> drinking more strictly.
> I'm not necessarily against such a card system (provided it's fair and
> reliable), just like it's used in some cases to prevent soccer
> hooligans from misbehaving repeatedly.
> Where I live (in the Netherlands), carrying ID in public at all times
> is already mandatory and it would be a small step to link it to a
> licence-system to engage in certain risky activities (like drinking,
> driving or using soft-drugs).
> 'Social security systems' like these can also be seen as a powerful
> argument for a completely transparant and fully accountable government
> in order to prevent abuse of technology that invades public privacy.
>
People who want to drink will do so, it's the nonsensical drug war mentality
all over again. The only way is to change social attitudes towards binge
drinking. Let's face it, it's the binge drinking circuits in town centres
that are where the visible problems exist, not a bottle or two of wine with
a meal.
As for criminal behaviour, how about responsibility and proper consequences,
if you drink and drive and cause an accident then expect a lengthy spell in
custody. If you kill someone it's manslaughter and the penalty should be
appropriate. At the moment in the UK the treatment of drunk drivers involved
in accidents is bizarre to say the least, maybe it has something to do with
the fact that historically the authoritarian types were the worst offenders.

name wrote:
>>
>> What? Now you want everyone else to see what I'm drinking too - as
>> well as Big Brother?
>
> No, you can just record activities and erase it automatically in case
> nothing unusual happens.
>
Why? Privacy is a fundamental liberty. Crass remarks such as 'if you have
done nothing wrong, you have no need of privacy', should be treated with the
disdain that they merit. I should no more have to argue for my right to
privacy than to argue for my right to life. In any civilised society they
would be taken as given.

Cynic wrote:
> On 27 May 2006 19:52:56 -0700, "name" > wrote:
>
> >> If you want to institute that as a penalty for people who have offended
> >> while drinking - that may be a different matter - I would find it harder
> >> to argue against that - but it should not be the rule.
>
> >Why not? It doesn't affect your freedom as long as you behave
> >responsibly (even binge drinking can be considered responsible if you
> >don't bother or harass anyone under influence).
>
> So why don't you publish all your personal details to this newsgroup?
> It will not affect your freedom.

I wouldn't mind publishing most of them as I reckon anyone determined
to obtain them would succeed at this anyway.
Some of them, like the code I use at ATM machines are indeed sensitive
private information (just like passwords to my email accounts) and I
would be less willing to make those public. On the other hand, the
service providers of my email are probably able to access it and in
case I would be a serious criminal like someone collecting and
distributing childpornography police would have access to my mail
accounts anyway.
What I'm trying to say is that there must be a good reason to have
access to information that people like to keep private. If someone
behaves irresponsibly, that might be a reason to breach their privacy.
In a world where abuse of private information isn't possible (for
instance in case someone who was accessing my email could always be
identified in case they abuse information), I wouldn't mind not having
any privacy in case abuse is unlikely.
For instance, if my DNA was used to identify me at a bank in order to
withdraw cash from the ATM, I wouldn't mind people having access to my
DNA code if this would still not allow them to impersonate me and
obtain cash from my bankaccount.
I'm just openminded towards the idea of an open society where everybody
potentially has easy access to any information about anybody, as long
as the openness of such a society also effectively prevents abuse of
any information that we would consider sensitive in our current
society.

>
> The answer to that questuin may tell you why I don't want the
> government to have easy access to my personal details.
>
> --
> Cynic

Harry The Horse wrote:
> name wrote:
> >>
> >> What? Now you want everyone else to see what I'm drinking too - as
> >> well as Big Brother?
> >
> > No, you can just record activities and erase it automatically in case
> > nothing unusual happens.
> >
> Why? Privacy is a fundamental liberty. Crass remarks such as 'if you have
> done nothing wrong, you have no need of privacy', should be treated with the
> disdain that they merit. I should no more have to argue for my right to
> privacy than to argue for my right to life. In any civilised society they
> would be taken as given.

There are no fundamental liberties. If there were, one of the most
fundamental
ones would be that you would be allowed to engage in any activities
that affect primarily yourself (like abusing/using any drug you
please).
Basically the government owns your body and is the ultimate authority
to decide what you can and can't do to your own body.
Given this ownership of the government of your body, that means they
can basically do with you whatever they like and any supposed
fundamental liberties are a figment of your imagination.

name wrote:
> Harry The Horse wrote:
>> name wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What? Now you want everyone else to see what I'm drinking too - as
>>>> well as Big Brother?
>>>
>>> No, you can just record activities and erase it automatically in
>>> case nothing unusual happens.
>>>
>> Why? Privacy is a fundamental liberty. Crass remarks such as 'if
>> you have done nothing wrong, you have no need of privacy', should be
>> treated with the disdain that they merit. I should no more have to
>> argue for my right to privacy than to argue for my right to life.
>> In any civilised society they would be taken as given.
>
> There are no fundamental liberties.
>
The Bill of Rights. The US Constitution. The ECHR. The Human Rights Act.
All of these fall short of what I would like to see as a list of fundamental
rights, however the case that there are fundamental liberties is pretty much
accepted. The problem comes when governments see themselves as granting
liberties rather than stating that liberties exist, such as in the US
Constituency. Ultimately, rights are enunciated by law but preserved by the
will of the people.

> If there were, one of the most
> fundamental
> ones would be that you would be allowed to engage in any activities
> that affect primarily yourself (like abusing/using any drug you
> please).
>
This was the case 100 years ago and arguably the world would be a much
better place today if government still accepted it.

> Basically the government owns your body and is the ultimate authority
> to decide what you can and can't do to your own body.
>
Although our counter-productive drugs laws might make you think that,
fortunately not even the most extreme authoritarian has claimed that the
state has such powers over the individual.

> Given this ownership of the government of your body, that means they
> can basically do with you whatever they like and any supposed
> fundamental liberties are a figment of your imagination.
>
Governments may think that they are completely sovereign and may do whatever
they like. Some civil servants may even be stupid enough to think like you
think. However they would be wrong. Ultimately all law is subserviant to
the will of the people. People tolerate most drugs law because it doesn't
affect them, and the drugs law that does, such as the prohibition on
cannabis, millions of people casually flout. The downgrading of cannabis
was done because a strict enforcement of the law was not practicable. All
laws and governments are subject to the consent of the governed. The Poll
Tax failed precisely because of widespread opposition to it. If the state
tried to assert its 'ownership' of the citizen's body by making over-eating
or over drinking a criminal offence, the result would be defiance and
rebellion. Rights are preserved by people believing in them and asserting
them.

Cynic wrote:
> On 27 May 2006 13:05:05 -0700, "name" > wrote:
>
> >If we can prevent this by giving
> >up privacy, I think it's a price many are willing to pay.
>
> If we could prevent this by giving up cornflakes. I think it is a
> price many would be willing to pay. The one is just as likely to be
> effective as the other.

I think it's rather obvious that terrorists depend on privacy for their
preparations
not to be detected. Many crimes could be solved or prevented if there
was no privacy.

>
> > Personally I
> >don't even understand why my DNA isn't recorded in my passport yet and
> >why there isn't an international genedatabase to track down terrorists,
> >murderers, rapists and other criminals. **** privacy. We can have
> >freedom without privacy.
>
> You say that you are not concerned about your privacy. I don't
> believe you. You can easily prove me wrong. Simply post all your
> personal details in reply to my post. Name, address, telephone
> numbers, bank details, who you work for, your employee number, salary,
> pension details, medical history,and a summary of your present sexual
> activities.

This depends of course on the type of society you're in. Currently such
personal details could be abused, but it's not unthinkable society
could be reformed in such a way that abuse of personal information
isn't possible anymore.
If in any situation where my personal information is secure because
it's linked to my DNA and nobody is able to impersonate me for instance
by abusing my personal information, I would be less concerened about
disclosing this personal information.
If anyone is able to access any information about anyone else, that
would allow me to feel more comfortable about disclosing anything
private.
I often wonder why you should feel ashamed about certain things like
nudity, sexuality, diseases, other imperfections, etc.. and I've found
that it's something you can overcome and feel liberated from. For
instance, I suffer from IBD (inflammatory bowel disease) and this is
typically something that's difficult to discuss, even among close
friends or family. But once you overcome such inhibitions which happen
to be imposed from ones cultural background, it's a relief in many
ways. So instead of a tendency to keep this to myself and avoid
discussing things that are potentially embarrassing, I found it
worthwhile to strive towards overcoming these inhibitions and trying to
be open and honest about it.
Anyway, privacy is a complicated issue and it can be considered from
many angles, but in general I'm a proponent of an open society where
everybody feels free to share any information with anyone else, as
opposed to a closed society where everybody is afraid to disclose
anything private to anyone except their closest friends.

>
> *Then* I will believe that you have no concerns about your privacy,
> and also that you are a bit daft.
>
> --
> Cynic

On 28 May 2006 08:43:05 -0700, "name" > wrote:

>I'm just openminded towards the idea of an open society where everybody
>potentially has easy access to any information about anybody, as long
>as the openness of such a society also effectively prevents abuse of
>any information that we would consider sensitive in our current
>society.

Except that you have no idea what information may turn out to be
sensitive.

Maybe you have a relative who married a foreign immigrant. Maybe one
of your ancestors was foreign.

The next government may decide to impose limitations on certain
foreign immigrants *and any relatives they have*. You think that's
farfetched?

I watched the film, "Pianoman" yesterday evening. It is the story of
a Jew in wartime Poland, and based on fact. The teenage son of a
friend I was with said, "Why don't they just say that they are not
Jewish?"

Which would have been perfectly possible, had they not happily handed
over their personal details to the government at a time when nobody
thought that such political change was possible.

--
Cynic

JohnR wrote:
> "name" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Jasbird wrote:
> >> On Sat, 27 May 2006 14:23:24 +0100, john2 > wrote:
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> In uk.legal Jasbird > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Europe to crack down on ?passive drinking?, says leaked report
> >> >>
> >> >>>Our reporter in Brussels reveals that EC officials are plotting to
> >> >>>make
> >> >>>drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.
> >> >>
> >> >> Fat chance. Especially in countries such as France and Spain where
> >> >> wine
> >> >> on the table is the norm of most meals.
> >> >>
> >> >> Axel
> >> >
> >> >Many studies have shown that moderate drinking increases life span and
> >> >reduces risk of coronaries. So it doesn't make that much sense to stop
> >> >something that is healthy, even for a European bureaucrat.
> >> >
> >> >john2
> >>
> >> No doubt moderate cocaine use has a whole load of advantages going for
> >> it too. (The President of Bolivia, an ex-cocaine farmer, would certainly
> >> agree with that statement)
> >>
> >> The problems a
> >> 1) Many people who can't limit their drinking. How do we protect the
> >> vulnerable?
> >> 2) What about the peripheral damage caused by boozing. Car accident
> >> victims, children of broken homes, etc. You saw the numbers? The
> >> fallout costs of booze on European society are estimated at : 240
> >> (minimum) to 980 billion Euros per year; which is many thousands times
> >> greater than the cost of Ecstasy use. [Ecstasy is a class A drug]
> >>
> >> You think you can argue for freedom to booze on the basis that "moderate
> >> drinking increases life span and reduces risk of coronaries" - you
> >> haven't a hope in hell. It's time you came up with some better
> >> arguments. I suggest you try arguing for "I drink because I like it and
> >> the government have no right to tell me what to do".
> >
> > People can be given a kind of creditcard linked to their ID that keeps
> > track of how
> > many drinks they have had every day and this can be used to ensure
> > people cannot drink more than what can be considered health (say 2 to 4
> > alcohol beverages a day).
> > Alternatively, people could be free to drink as much as they like
> > provided they have a alcohol-allowed card, but as soon as they screw up
> > (get involved in alcohol-related accidents, etc..), they can have their
> > card revoked. Such a card can also be used to enforce age limits on
> > drinking more strictly.
> > I'm not necessarily against such a card system (provided it's fair and
> > reliable), just like it's used in some cases to prevent soccer
> > hooligans from misbehaving repeatedly.
> > Where I live (in the Netherlands), carrying ID in public at all times
> > is already mandatory and it would be a small step to link it to a
> > licence-system to engage in certain risky activities (like drinking,
> > driving or using soft-drugs).
> > 'Social security systems' like these can also be seen as a powerful
> > argument for a completely transparant and fully accountable government
> > in order to prevent abuse of technology that invades public privacy.
> >
> People who want to drink will do so,

That's a bit like saying: "Why should automatich machine guns not be
for sale
at the local 7-11? People who want to murder will do so anyway."

> it's the nonsensical drug war mentality
> all over again. The only way is to change social attitudes towards binge
> drinking.

I do agree that changing social attitudes might be a more effective
way, but same
goes for responsible driving. We don't need drivers licences if people
are always responsible enough to drive carefully.

> Let's face it, it's the binge drinking circuits in town centres
> that are where the visible problems exist, not a bottle or two of wine with
> a meal.

I think domestic violence is also facilitated to some degree by alcohol
abuse in private.

> As for criminal behaviour, how about responsibility and proper consequences,
> if you drink and drive and cause an accident then expect a lengthy spell in
> custody. If you kill someone it's manslaughter and the penalty should be
> appropriate.

If it turns out that stiff penalties are sufficient to prevent most
people from criminal activities but are not effective to prevent people
from committing crimes under influence, perhaps additional measures are
warranted. I'm not advocating stiffer penalties in case of crimes
committed under influence, but I think it might be reasonable to have a
drinking licence similar to a driver's licence. Just to make people
more aware that the liberty to use alcohol comes with certain
responsibilities.

> At the moment in the UK the treatment of drunk drivers involved
> in accidents is bizarre to say the least, maybe it has something to do with
> the fact that historically the authoritarian types were the worst offenders.

Cynic wrote:
> On 28 May 2006 08:43:05 -0700, "name" > wrote:
>
> >I'm just openminded towards the idea of an open society where everybody
> >potentially has easy access to any information about anybody, as long
> >as the openness of such a society also effectively prevents abuse of
> >any information that we would consider sensitive in our current
> >society.
>
> Except that you have no idea what information may turn out to be
> sensitive.
>
> Maybe you have a relative who married a foreign immigrant. Maybe one
> of your ancestors was foreign.
>
> The next government may decide to impose limitations on certain
> foreign immigrants *and any relatives they have*. You think that's
> farfetched?
>
> I watched the film, "Pianoman" yesterday evening. It is the story of
> a Jew in wartime Poland, and based on fact. The teenage son of a
> friend I was with said, "Why don't they just say that they are not
> Jewish?"
>
> Which would have been perfectly possible, had they not happily handed
> over their personal details to the government at a time when nobody
> thought that such political change was possible.

I think an open society with a completely transparant government is the
best way to prevent totalitarian governments from arrising in the
future.
Also, technology like the internet might allow for more direct forms of
government or even anarchy (in the sense of selforganization) where
there is no government and people become self-governing by taking full
responsibility for their actions.

>
> --
> Cynic

On Sun, 28 May 2006 14:50:26 GMT, (DK)
wrote:

>In article >, Phil Stovell > wrote:
>>On Sat, 27 May 2006 14:23:24 +0100, john2 wrote:
>>
>>> Many studies have shown that moderate drinking increases life span and
>>> reduces risk of coronaries.
>>
>>Except those studies were flawed.
>>
>><http://groups.google.com/group/uk.politics.drugs/msg/d8e6f980b32e35a4?&hl=en>
>
>Except that those studies *maybe* were flawed. Or the study you quote is.
>The benefits of moderate drinking have beeen demostrated in animal
>models and are suported by a large number of biochemical observations.

Given the huge cost to society (UK dead body count over 25,000 per
year), a tiny benefit which 'may' result from moderate drinking seems
like a ridiculous claim for booze. If you are concerned about being
healthy you can get much better benefits by eating 5 portions a
fruit/vege per day and exercising briskly for 25 minutes. Boozing
encourages people to eat badly and be lazy.

On 28 May 2006 08:43:05 -0700, "name" > wrote:

>I'm just openminded towards the idea of an open society where everybody
>potentially has easy access to any information about anybody, as long
>as the openness of such a society also effectively prevents abuse of
>any information that we would consider sensitive in our current
>society.

Would you really want your every youthful indiscretion pored over by
petty officials for the rest of your life every time you want to do
anything?

IanAl wrote:
> On 28 May 2006 08:43:05 -0700, "name" > wrote:
>
> >I'm just openminded towards the idea of an open society where everybody
> >potentially has easy access to any information about anybody, as long
> >as the openness of such a society also effectively prevents abuse of
> >any information that we would consider sensitive in our current
> >society.
>
> Would you really want your every youthful indiscretion pored over by
> petty officials for the rest of your life every time you want to do
> anything?

Sure. I did many stupid things when I was younger, heck I probably
still do something
stupid everyonce in a while, but that's human. Don't see why people,
including 'petty officials' having access to this information is such a
big deal. It's like writing a candid detailed autobiography.

On 28 May 2006 10:49:19 -0700, "name" > wrote:


>I think an open society with a completely transparant government is the
>best way to prevent totalitarian governments from arrising in the
>future.
>Also, technology like the internet might allow for more direct forms of
>government or even anarchy (in the sense of selforganization) where
>there is no government and people become self-governing by taking full
>responsibility for their actions.

Yes, that would be good IMO. But meanwhile, we live in a place and
era where I do not trust the direction our government is moving one
iota.

So I am totally against giving them any additional personal
information that could quite possibly be used against myself or my
family in the not so distant future.

--
Cynic

On 28 May 2006 14:50:16 -0700, "name" > wrote:

>Sure. I did many stupid things when I was younger, heck I probably
>still do something
>stupid everyonce in a while, but that's human. Don't see why people,
>including 'petty officials' having access to this information is such a
>big deal. It's like writing a candid detailed autobiography.

Unless the petty officials decide to segregate people and withdraw the
human rights of some of them.

And one of your indiscretions has placed you on the other side of the
wall.

--
Cynic

On 28 May 2006 14:50:16 -0700, "name" > wrote:

>IanAl wrote:
>> On 28 May 2006 08:43:05 -0700, "name" > wrote:
>>
>> >I'm just openminded towards the idea of an open society where everybody
>> >potentially has easy access to any information about anybody, as long
>> >as the openness of such a society also effectively prevents abuse of
>> >any information that we would consider sensitive in our current
>> >society.
>>
>> Would you really want your every youthful indiscretion pored over by
>> petty officials for the rest of your life every time you want to do
>> anything?
>
>Sure. I did many stupid things when I was younger, heck I probably
>still do something
>stupid everyonce in a while, but that's human. Don't see why people,
>including 'petty officials' having access to this information is such a
>big deal. It's like writing a candid detailed autobiography.

Well, they'll stroke their chins and think, what else has this person
done?

And prospective employers will look at these peccadilloes (irrelevant
to the job being applied for) and say, let's give the job to the
squeaky clean candidate, even if he does appear to be rather a dull
dog.

On 28 May 2006 09:24:15 -0700, "name" > wrote:

>> If we could prevent this by giving up cornflakes. I think it is a
>> price many would be willing to pay. The one is just as likely to be
>> effective as the other.

>I think it's rather obvious that terrorists depend on privacy for their
>preparations
>not to be detected. Many crimes could be solved or prevented if there
>was no privacy.

Only those that were not planned. It is not too difficult to keep
things secret if a crime is planned beforehand, even if draconian
inroads into our privacy were to be made.

>> You say that you are not concerned about your privacy. I don't
>> believe you. You can easily prove me wrong. Simply post all your
>> personal details in reply to my post. Name, address, telephone
>> numbers, bank details, who you work for, your employee number, salary,
>> pension details, medical history,and a summary of your present sexual
>> activities.

>This depends of course on the type of society you're in. Currently such
>personal details could be abused, but it's not unthinkable society
>could be reformed in such a way that abuse of personal information
>isn't possible anymore.

So why do you say that you are not concerned about privacy? You think
that such abuses could never be carried out by the government?

>If in any situation where my personal information is secure because
>it's linked to my DNA and nobody is able to impersonate me for instance
>by abusing my personal information, I would be less concerened about
>disclosing this personal information.

Even if you were a member of a race that many people despised, and you
thus prefered not to advertise the fact?

>I often wonder why you should feel ashamed about certain things like
>nudity, sexuality, diseases, other imperfections, etc.. and I've found
>that it's something you can overcome and feel liberated from. For
>instance, I suffer from IBD (inflammatory bowel disease) and this is
>typically something that's difficult to discuss, even among close
>friends or family. But once you overcome such inhibitions which happen
>to be imposed from ones cultural background, it's a relief in many
>ways. So instead of a tendency to keep this to myself and avoid
>discussing things that are potentially embarrassing, I found it
>worthwhile to strive towards overcoming these inhibitions and trying to
>be open and honest about it.

Would you feel the same way if , instead of a bowel condition, you
happened to find children sexually attractive? You'd find it a relief
to discuss your condition with friends and family?

>Anyway, privacy is a complicated issue and it can be considered from
>many angles, but in general I'm a proponent of an open society where
>everybody feels free to share any information with anyone else, as
>opposed to a closed society where everybody is afraid to disclose
>anything private to anyone except their closest friends.

So publish your ATM PIN number and prove it.

--
Cynic

name wrote:
>
> If it turns out that stiff penalties are sufficient to prevent most
> people from criminal activities but are not effective to prevent
> people from committing crimes under influence, perhaps additional
> measures are warranted. I'm not advocating stiffer penalties in case
> of crimes committed under influence, but I think it might be
> reasonable to have a drinking licence similar to a driver's licence.
> Just to make people more aware that the liberty to use alcohol comes
> with certain responsibilities.
>
I think you are David Blunkett and ICMFP.

name wrote:
>
> Anyway, privacy is a complicated issue and it can be considered from
> many angles, but in general I'm a proponent of an open society where
> everybody feels free to share any information with anyone else, as
> opposed to a closed society where everybody is afraid to disclose
> anything private to anyone except their closest friends.
>
Tell you what, Name, when the government feels free to share with me all its
little secrets, then I'll be happy to reciprocate. Until then it can go
**** itself.

"name" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Cynic wrote:
>> On 28 May 2006 08:43:05 -0700, "name" > wrote:
>>
>> >I'm just openminded towards the idea of an open society where everybody
>> >potentially has easy access to any information about anybody, as long
>> >as the openness of such a society also effectively prevents abuse of
>> >any information that we would consider sensitive in our current
>> >society.
>>
>> Except that you have no idea what information may turn out to be
>> sensitive.
>>
>> Maybe you have a relative who married a foreign immigrant. Maybe one
>> of your ancestors was foreign.
>>
>> The next government may decide to impose limitations on certain
>> foreign immigrants *and any relatives they have*. You think that's
>> farfetched?
>>
>> I watched the film, "Pianoman" yesterday evening. It is the story of
>> a Jew in wartime Poland, and based on fact. The teenage son of a
>> friend I was with said, "Why don't they just say that they are not
>> Jewish?"
>>
>> Which would have been perfectly possible, had they not happily handed
>> over their personal details to the government at a time when nobody
>> thought that such political change was possible.
>
> I think an open society with a completely transparant government is the
> best way to prevent totalitarian governments from arrising in the
> future.
> Also, technology like the internet might allow for more direct forms of
> government or even anarchy (in the sense of selforganization) where
> there is no government and people become self-governing by taking full
> responsibility for their actions.

Well since there has never been such a government in the history of the
world, why would you think that humans are capable of such a thing?

Scott E.

name wrote:
>
> Where I live (in the Netherlands), carrying ID in public at all times
> is already mandatory
>
Ah, that explains it. You have already accepted a state of slavery. Poor
you.

name wrote:
>
> I don't see what's your objection against this.
> Granting the government greater powers (like keeping track of people
> with ID cards, etc.) comes with a responsibility for the government to
> ensure complete transparancy and full accountability in order to
> prevent abuse of such powers.
>
When the mythical government that does that comes along, I will cheerfully
submit to registering for its ID card. Until then, it can eat my shit.

Harry The Horse wrote:
> name wrote:
> >
> > Where I live (in the Netherlands), carrying ID in public at all times
> > is already mandatory
> >
> Ah, that explains it. You have already accepted a state of slavery. Poor
> you.

Hey, we're all wearing uniforms, don't kid yourself. :-)

Scott E. wrote:
> "name" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Cynic wrote:
> >> On 28 May 2006 08:43:05 -0700, "name" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >I'm just openminded towards the idea of an open society where everybody
> >> >potentially has easy access to any information about anybody, as long
> >> >as the openness of such a society also effectively prevents abuse of
> >> >any information that we would consider sensitive in our current
> >> >society.
> >>
> >> Except that you have no idea what information may turn out to be
> >> sensitive.
> >>
> >> Maybe you have a relative who married a foreign immigrant. Maybe one
> >> of your ancestors was foreign.
> >>
> >> The next government may decide to impose limitations on certain
> >> foreign immigrants *and any relatives they have*. You think that's
> >> farfetched?
> >>
> >> I watched the film, "Pianoman" yesterday evening. It is the story of
> >> a Jew in wartime Poland, and based on fact. The teenage son of a
> >> friend I was with said, "Why don't they just say that they are not
> >> Jewish?"
> >>
> >> Which would have been perfectly possible, had they not happily handed
> >> over their personal details to the government at a time when nobody
> >> thought that such political change was possible.
> >
> > I think an open society with a completely transparant government is the
> > best way to prevent totalitarian governments from arrising in the
> > future.
> > Also, technology like the internet might allow for more direct forms of
> > government or even anarchy (in the sense of selforganization) where
> > there is no government and people become self-governing by taking full
> > responsibility for their actions.
>
> Well since there has never been such a government in the history of the
> world, why would you think that humans are capable of such a thing?
>
> Scott E.

It's also the first time in history (the past century) we've had
computers and other technology available which allows for unprecedented
transformations of society (similar to how such dramatic inventions as
scripture and the printing press transformed society). I think
democracy isn't possible either without a certain level of
technological developments (like an educational system) in the
evolution of mankind.