- Thread Starter
- #61
I completely disagree with your conclusions about
I absolutely disagree with your assumptions about the value of this information. This is the real value the information provides:
1) Puts accountability on the state.
What this information does is provides a basis for analysis of how the king's edicts are being enforced. By itself, the spreadsheet doesn't tell what kinds of bias the governor is using in enforcement, but it does provide a foundation upon which the public can INDEPENDENTLY perform a bias check on the governor. Is he selectively enforcing the law against perceived political enemies? Is he ignoring complaints against perceived political friends?
2) Puts accountability on the persons making the complaints.
If I'm going to file a complaint against someone, I have a strong responsbility to make sure the complaint is TRUE. If I know that I'm at risk of being caught in a lie, that might very well stop me from making a false complaint. I'll make a prediction that now some people in the public are finding their complaints are no longer truly private, I think they will be less likely to submit entirely frivolous complaints.
==============
As far as people making threats against persons on the list, that is flat out illegal. People who make threats can be traced and charged with a crime.
My belief is that no one's personally identifiable information should ever be given in confidence and then spread publicly for any reason. The businesses accused should not become public targets and neither should the accusers. One doesn't need these data points to run any sort of business type analysis or public sentiment analysis on the data.
The only thing the inclusion of PII does is allow for hateful parties to now have a target. The result is some sort of mob/vigilante thing - and I'm absolutely against that sort of behavior.
I absolutely disagree with your assumptions about the value of this information. This is the real value the information provides:
1) Puts accountability on the state.
What this information does is provides a basis for analysis of how the king's edicts are being enforced. By itself, the spreadsheet doesn't tell what kinds of bias the governor is using in enforcement, but it does provide a foundation upon which the public can INDEPENDENTLY perform a bias check on the governor. Is he selectively enforcing the law against perceived political enemies? Is he ignoring complaints against perceived political friends?
2) Puts accountability on the persons making the complaints.
If I'm going to file a complaint against someone, I have a strong responsbility to make sure the complaint is TRUE. If I know that I'm at risk of being caught in a lie, that might very well stop me from making a false complaint. I'll make a prediction that now some people in the public are finding their complaints are no longer truly private, I think they will be less likely to submit entirely frivolous complaints.
==============
As far as people making threats against persons on the list, that is flat out illegal. People who make threats can be traced and charged with a crime.