Roland Dürre
Saturday July 20th, 2013

DATA SECURITY

Richard GutjahrRichard Gutjahr (in Twitter: @gutjahr) calls himself a journalist and blogger who is often ahead of the times.

I discovered him “online” rather early. (Unfortunately,) He often says what I feel.

The current post at gutjahrs blog is titled:

Why don’t you cypher? (Verschlüssel’ doch!)

This article motivated me to write a comment. For reasons of laziness, however, I only posted it at facebook, which basically was a bad idea. So here you get my ideas once more, including some revised notes:

We delegated the right to exercise legislative power to the state. Consequently it is the state that has a power monopoly. That is wise, but also dangerous. It gives the state immense power. If the state turns “evil” or “bad”, (which can happen any time and happens all the time), it will become our worst threat. Consequently, the “state” must be transparent and subjected to control by the citizens at all times in all (!) dimensions!

The same must be also demanded of data security. Because if the state is not a hundred per cent transparent for the citizens, doors for abuse are wide open. I cannot think of any (!) area where a federal transparency might be detrimental for the common good in a transparent society. This includes reservations with respect to safety and other often construed aspects. Paranoia will always cause more harm than good!

Consequently, the transparent society is a necessary condition for a successful “digital” society. Because a state can only be truly transparent in a transparent society. That means that “FRONTIER LAND” will need transparency as a central value on top of tolerance and respect. So we must work towards a social consensus where we call for a free, open and transparent society! That is actually what our political powers should aim at.

It is just ridiculous to call for better data security. Laws protecting data have ZERO use, but they cause a huge amount of blind work.

And you should never forget: the state holds the legislative power. And we are just witnessing how even a “still good” nation will create or change its laws as it likes or as it is useful. Not to mention an evil nation.

Let me also add that I warmly recommend you reading the gutjahrs blog!

RMD
(Translated by EG)

4 Kommentare zu “DATA SECURITY”

  1. Chris Wood (Saturday July 20th, 2013)

    It is not clear that the state should be completely transparent. As an extreme example, do we really want criminals to be warned about all police investigations?
    More relevant to what Roland was trying to say, is the question whether sometimes the politicians take decisions better than the general public opinion. I believe this to be the case. Consider South Africa, where Mandela, De Clerke and Tutu managed to get a remarkably peaceful transition to democracy, despite the atmosphere of hate and distrust.
    I believe that independent media are vital, but that they should exercise some restraint.
    It is surprising how unconcerned the public is about fairly extreme injustice to individuals, (other than themselves). Why has El Masri not been compensated? Why is the EC trying to get Snowden sent to USA? Why did it take so long to start the trial of Bradley Manning?
    In case my list makes me look anti-American, I must say that China, Russia and many other countries are much worse, and I should mention Gustl Mollath.

  2. rd (Saturday July 20th, 2013)

    @Chris: In einer transparenten Gesellschaft dürfte auch das Verbrechen transparent werden.

  3. Chris Wood (Saturday July 20th, 2013)

    OK, Roland, can I rely on you to convince the criminals about that?

  4. rd (Saturday July 20th, 2013)

    Hi Chris, who are the criminals? May be you and me?

Kommentar verfassen

*