Benjamin Franklin
In a post 9/11 world, the balance between privacy and protection has been a hotly contested issue. Perhaps heightened airport security isn't really all that invasive and maybe it does quite a lot of good. Okay. That's pretty much universally accepted for good reason. What about warrantless wiretapping and freezing bank accounts, internet connections? Well, the reasonable and understanding side of me has a hard time with this one. Maybe the threat is too immediate, too dangerous to deny the government's ability to monitor suspected terrorists. But then again, does that even matter? Isn't there an ethical absolute which requires law enforcement to be checked and balanced by the courts, no matter the circumstance? This is a very lay and overly-simplified look at the issue, to be sure. However, it is clear to everyone that our representatives around the world are hotly debating this issue every day. Yet, they don't seem to care much for us pirates. Why?
Think of this issue a bit differently, if you please. Replace the terrorists in this situation with file-sharers. How do you now feel about the justification of warrantless wire-tapping? Now replace the intelligence agencies who track terrorism with, say, Warner Brothers, Virgin, Adobe, Paramount, etc. Now, how do you feel about warrantless wiretapping, freezing internet connections, placing spyware on computers to track the every keystroke of the user? It seems clear that every advocate for the rights of suspected terrorists would raise their voices even louder. Wouldn't most of those who justify extreme policing concede that maybe using these practices merely on file-sharers is over the line? Then why do we not hear these voices? Where are these representatives advocating the despicable practice of corporations taking the roll of policing agencies?
They are in the Pirate Party and there alone.
