Monday, February 28, 2005

"Erutrot! Erutrot!" Postscript: Today's White House press conference with Scott McClellan: Q Has the President ever issued an order against torture of prisoners? And do we still send prisoners to Syria to be tortured? MR. McCLELLAN: The President has stated publicly that we do not condone torture and that he would never authorize the use of torture. He has made that -- Q But has he issued an order? MR. McCLELLAN: -- statement very publicly, and he's made it clear to everybody in the government that we do not torture. Q Well, why do we still hear these stories then? MR. McCLELLAN: If there are allegations of wrongdoing, then the President expects those allegations to be fully investigated and if there is actual wrongdoing that occurs, then people need to be held to account. The President has made that very clear. Q Well, do you deny that we still send prisoners to other countries to be tortured? Is that a denial? MR. McCLELLAN: Judge Gonzales testified previously that we have an obligation not to render people to countries that we know would torture them. Q He did not rule out torture. MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, David. ... 10:51:53 AM    comment [] A question of privacy As you may have heard, someone broke into Paris Hilton's Sidekick and published her personal e-mails, her phone contacts list, and her private photos (some of which were racy, of course) on the Web. This is over and above her private sex video that was stolen and publicly sold under the title "A Night in Paris." An unnamed associate of Paris said the following to MSNBC: She was pretty upset about it. It's one thing to have people looking at your sex tapes, but having people reading your personal e-mails is a real invasion of privacy. Now on first glance I found this quote hilarious. Only Paris and her friends would find the release of a personal sex tape to be less an invasion of privacy than the release of personal e-mails. But on reflection, it actually makes sense. Sex, like going to the bathroom, is normally done in private. But having a tape released of one's sexual activity really isn't that revealing. We all know what sex is like, and besides, the sex tape is now clichéd. Even if the tape reveals something especially scandalous that one wants to hide (deviant sex, adultery, etc.), it's really the release of the news that's more damaging to one's privacy than the scenes of the tape itself. Moreover, the act of videotaping sex is essentially voyeuristic. It's arousing in part because of the possibility that others might see it. Thus, in participating in the act, one is already showing a willingness to be revealing. But private e-mail messages are direct communications of one's thoughts to one's friends and associates that are intended not to be known by anyone else, let alone publicized. If we knew that any e-mail could be made public, we would write differently (whereas the participants in a sex video already know it might be accessed by others, and this doesn't fundamentally change their behavior -- if anything, people become more showy on video). There is also a limit on what a sex video can reveal about oneself that e-mail lacks. Sex videos show sex, but e-mails can show anything about oneself. That's why their privacy, it may be argued, has greater importance. We should keep this in mind when the issue of government and corporate access to e-mail communications is discussed. The slogan: It's like having your private sex video released ... only worse. 1:32:43 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2005 David V. Johnson. Last update: 3/1/05; 1:19:24 AM. This theme is based on the SoundWaves (blue) Manila theme.