GUARDIAN Editorial: "It Is NOT The Role Of Politicians To Determine The Limits Of Public Discussion" [View all]

[kpete]

Surveillance and the state: this way the debate goes on
Thanks to Edward Snowden, the world now has a debate about the dramatic change in the contract between state and citizen

The Guardian, Friday 23 August 2013 18.58 EDT

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Secrecy and openness

Thanks to Mr Snowden they have now got a debate ? one that is rippling around the world. President Barack Obama says he welcomes that debate. That much is encouraging, even if it seems unlikely to be true because it is not going to be a comfortable debate for any government ? nor for those in intelligence, nor for anyone running a major technology or telecommunications company. The world was simpler when the law could be used to prevent any meaningful and informed discussion of what was involved. The laws crafted before and during the first world war (the Espionage Act in the US, the Official Secrets Act in the UK) saw to that.

Secrecy and openness must collide. Governments and spies will place the greater emphasis on security: that is inevitable. Individuals who treasure free speech, an unfettered press, the capacity for dissent, or an individual's rights to privacy or protection against the state, will have equal, or greater, concerns.


...............

Civil liberties and security

These are words that should be heeded by the British government official who told us that the Guardian had "had our debate" and that there was no "need" to write any more. It is not the role of politicians or civil servants to determine the limits of public discussion. Nor should the debate be circumscribed by attempting to criminalise the act of journalism ? without which, in this instance, there could be no debate.

Citizens of free countries are entitled to protect their privacy against the state. The state has a duty to protect free speech as well as security. Fundamental rights, as we say, collide. Journalists have a duty to inform and facilitate a debate and to help test the consent of people about the nature of any trade-offs between civil liberties and security. A democratic government should seek to protect and nourish that debate, not threaten it or stamp it out.


BRAVO!!!!
read the rest:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/surveillance-state-debate-goes-on