Wonder3Praha: 2016-12-02 12:10
Budapest: 2016-12-02 12:10
Buenos Aires: 2016-12-02 08:10

Dear Mr. Snowden,
I'm confident in your goodwill and all the intentions while you rang the alarm. But there are things which possibly not you or anyone else could exactly foresee in the future: digital and human privacy has turned into a circus, a sellable and profitable hype.

The shop of the Science Museum in London:Movie ad in the Prague metro:

I'll possibly watch it, I'm somewhat curious what format or content could the nowadays movie industry convey on this topic. I'll try to sit down without any prejudices, I expect handsome actors, pretty actresses, CGI graphics, banal dialogues and a lot of popcorn with coke. Leaving the cinema, I want to see desks where I can buy Snowden T-shirts, Snowden badges, Snowden baseball caps, Snowden CDs and DVDs, whatever one may imagine and materialize.

Your work has already been trivialized on all fronts. That's what open and transparent democracy is for.


I read an article
Here, giving some insights of the latest surveillance laws in the UK.

Mrs May stressed that the authorities would not be able to access everyone's browsing history, just basic data, which was the modern equivalent of an itemised phone bill.
Hello the internet is a series of tubes hello.

At the dusk of 2016, politics still tries to sell that terrorists use their home internet to plot whatever they unfortunately may plot. Still using the terrorist buzzword ongoing, forever. Big news: terrorists don't go to O2, T-Mobile, UPC or other ISPs personally to buy an internet subscription with their ID card, pay it monthly from their bank account and have it installed at their own registered address.

Was it only an empty media sentence, or indeed had the truth, that all the perpetrators in the last few years' terrorist attacks were known to the police? And if they had been known - postulating all the resources and information were already available - then why didn't they capture them beforehand? What else was missing? All the John Doe's, Jane Doe's and Anyman's browsing history?

Data hoarding
One of the main pillars of all the legal systems have ever existed are the reasonable or justified phrases. It's quite easy to comprehend the meaning: if someone threats you with his (or her) fist, it's not a reasonable level of defense if you respond with a rocket launcher. Without any doubt, there can be unfortunate souls who for whatever sad reasons would be capable to commit unspokable crimes. But are there that many, which would justify such bills violating the privacy of millions? Bills validating needle targeting in the haystack.

It was better in the Middle Ages
Ahh, those pure ole' days. Looking into the sunrise on cool mornings from the castle window, breathing fresh air. Slaying fiery dragons to save the beautiful fair-haired princess, then hand-in-hand walk together on the wheat fields, later lay down while gently kissing. Bubonic plague on Saturdays - but what's that compared to legalized personal surveillance.

If during those times you had walked in a dark alley and someone shout Give me yer money, ye bloody filth! with a knife at your throat - that was all. You handled the money over and just walked away. They didn't stalk and record you for a lifetime, compared to the 21st century democracy.

^ to the top
:: auto-generated by Ezüstkép miniDiary
All rights reserved © 2018