"The latest: 20 June 2017: https://thewire.in/148687/mandatory-aadhaar-bank-accounts-legality/
The central government recently announced
that it shall be mandatory to link Aadhaar numbers to all non-small
bank accounts, failing which, access to the bank accounts will be
disabled after December 31. This requirement has been brought into the
law via Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017
which have been notified by the government under powers delegated to it
by the parliament through the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
(PMLA)."
https://thewire.in/136521/aadhaar-omnipresent-state/
I write about matters related to technology and social issues that relate to privacy on one hand and our principle social entities on the other. Government, Big Business, our Monetary system.
This is an excellent presentation of the issue of personal privacy, people's privacy, vs the institutional entity encroachment on that private privacy for reasons justified by its rights related not to individual people but the nature of rights of individuals being assumed into the body of the greater social institution. Whichever that institution might be.
There is much food for intelligent examination in the link.
Under laying this matter is perhaps like a shifting of the "Burden of Proof". Which side has the preponderance of responsibility to prove its case?
The individual?
The institutional entity?
As the institutional entity assumes more of the identity of the individual and associated rights exclusive to an individual person a shift point in the big picture that determines which has by default the greater power in the framework of society between individual rights and freedom and institution rights and freedom is approached.
The default position of this situation today?
Individual rights that shall not be infringed gives power to the people.
The more our institutions have the standing of individual people they assume the associated rights of people that shall not be infringed upon until.....as a progression of change over time....the balance of the "Biggest Scale" weighing the burden of proof shifts to the Institutional Entity vs The Individual Person.
The driver of that shift is technology of institutional entities that is increasingly gathering information directly related to the individual and the power that that information has to serve the agenda of the institution over that individual that is used to serve itself an its interests as an social entity like a person.
https://thewire.in/131698/before-aadhaar-pan-card-verdict-debate-over-bodily-autonomy-and-living-a-dignified-life/
https://thewire.in/84925/aadhaar-privacy-security-legal-framework/
https://thewire.in/136102/coercion-aadhaar-project-ushar/
That is all taking place in India where maybe the individual never even had the supremacy of freedom and rights over its governance system and protection of that system from other social institutional entities. Past example: British Empire.
In the USA our big entities are gathering information about individuals that give them greater power contributing to their standing as corporate entities with quasi rights of a person citizen.
http://gizmodo.com/uber-doesn-t-want-you-to-see-this-document-about-its-va-1795151637
Maybe the one thing that makes a corporate social entity, private or public, more like a person is fundamentally what it "knows". What it knows leads to self awareness. Self awareness is something that is a defining attribute of a human being.
Friday, May 19, 2017
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
Check ID At The Door For Town Hall Meeting -- Members Only! BlockChain Governance Application
Pathetic:
http://crooksandliars.com/2017/05/gop-rep-walks-out-interview
Exclude outside agitators!
Should a Town Hall meeting be only for qualified electors? Qualifications to attend a "public meeting" of an elected official?
I think that I may request and be given an opportunity to meet with and elected congress critter of my representing me and my voting district voting district. A right? I think so. If public meetings with elected officials are restricted to only qualified electors then........they play to the home team. They are the only ones the critter represents.
The link was a press conference. Critical questions were asked and not answered.
If the general public of non-qualified voting district electors are to be excluded from a Town Hall meeting then it should be made state law.
Congressman Rod Blum, represents Iowa's First District in the US House of Representatives.
There seems to be a logic problem here. Rod Blum is responsible for voting on all federal legislation but is held accountable only to his electoral constituents.....and.....fortunately our free press.
As a matter of responsibility for voting on all congressional legislation is not the general public that is not in his electing district rightfully entitled to attend a Town Hall meeting?
There was a pertinent question asked: Would you accept political donations from anyone outside your district?
A follow up question that might have been asked if he had not walked out: What responsibility and accountability does he have to financial donors outside his district? Why would he accept donations from them if he is neither responsible nor accountable to them?
Special Interest. Money talks. Money votes. Money from anywhere (except foreign, unless well laundered and secret0 can talk anywhere on any issue without regard to that money coming only from constituents in an electoral district.
If only qualified voters of a district can attend a Town Hall
then.........
Only qualified voters may donate to to candidates for the elected position?
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22town+hall%22+constituents+only&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial
What about this:
Using the public auction model only identified district constituents many be given cards certifying their inclusion in an electoral district and thereby the right to ask questions. They also have the right to give their certifying card to anyone not in the electing district they choose to ask a question on their behalf.
This would give new meaning to political representation. A voters choice of anyone in or out of the electoral district to represent them to their representative. This right would be a one to one, one to many or many to many entity relationship.
In other words anyone regardless of their district voting status holding an "elector card" or more than one "elector card" may ask a question at a Town Hall meeting. That makes them representatives to the representative.
Since I like Blockchain concepts to audit the truth of anything then perhaps there is an application in this case that any qualified district voter may grant/give with Blockchain control the right of anyone to represent their views at any Town Hall meeting?
The district voter would monitor through the public Blockchain record any and all questions and comments made at a matter of public Town Hall record by whomever they conveyed authority in the Blockchain to speak on their behalf. Anything said on their behalf could be invalidated by the granter of the authority as a false chain.
Excellent idea: https://www.fastcompany.com/3063379/can-direct-democracy-be-revived-through-new-voting-apps
Free speech is public speech!......? Who or on behalf of whom is the right of free speech being exercised?
Viewing governance from a contractual model with performance specifications in a Blockchain system is a new way of looking at the problem domain. A contract of sorts is made between an electorate and an elected official. It is not only the actual voting ballot that makes the contract but money as an instrument of free speech as well. Political fact.
http://crooksandliars.com/2017/05/gop-rep-walks-out-interview
Exclude outside agitators!
Should a Town Hall meeting be only for qualified electors? Qualifications to attend a "public meeting" of an elected official?
I think that I may request and be given an opportunity to meet with and elected congress critter of my representing me and my voting district voting district. A right? I think so. If public meetings with elected officials are restricted to only qualified electors then........they play to the home team. They are the only ones the critter represents.
The link was a press conference. Critical questions were asked and not answered.
If the general public of non-qualified voting district electors are to be excluded from a Town Hall meeting then it should be made state law.
Congressman Rod Blum, represents Iowa's First District in the US House of Representatives.
There seems to be a logic problem here. Rod Blum is responsible for voting on all federal legislation but is held accountable only to his electoral constituents.....and.....fortunately our free press.
As a matter of responsibility for voting on all congressional legislation is not the general public that is not in his electing district rightfully entitled to attend a Town Hall meeting?
There was a pertinent question asked: Would you accept political donations from anyone outside your district?
A follow up question that might have been asked if he had not walked out: What responsibility and accountability does he have to financial donors outside his district? Why would he accept donations from them if he is neither responsible nor accountable to them?
Special Interest. Money talks. Money votes. Money from anywhere (except foreign, unless well laundered and secret0 can talk anywhere on any issue without regard to that money coming only from constituents in an electoral district.
If only qualified voters of a district can attend a Town Hall
then.........
Only qualified voters may donate to to candidates for the elected position?
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22town+hall%22+constituents+only&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial
What about this:
Using the public auction model only identified district constituents many be given cards certifying their inclusion in an electoral district and thereby the right to ask questions. They also have the right to give their certifying card to anyone not in the electing district they choose to ask a question on their behalf.
This would give new meaning to political representation. A voters choice of anyone in or out of the electoral district to represent them to their representative. This right would be a one to one, one to many or many to many entity relationship.
In other words anyone regardless of their district voting status holding an "elector card" or more than one "elector card" may ask a question at a Town Hall meeting. That makes them representatives to the representative.
Since I like Blockchain concepts to audit the truth of anything then perhaps there is an application in this case that any qualified district voter may grant/give with Blockchain control the right of anyone to represent their views at any Town Hall meeting?
The district voter would monitor through the public Blockchain record any and all questions and comments made at a matter of public Town Hall record by whomever they conveyed authority in the Blockchain to speak on their behalf. Anything said on their behalf could be invalidated by the granter of the authority as a false chain.
Excellent idea: https://www.fastcompany.com/3063379/can-direct-democracy-be-revived-through-new-voting-apps
Free speech is public speech!......? Who or on behalf of whom is the right of free speech being exercised?
Viewing governance from a contractual model with performance specifications in a Blockchain system is a new way of looking at the problem domain. A contract of sorts is made between an electorate and an elected official. It is not only the actual voting ballot that makes the contract but money as an instrument of free speech as well. Political fact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)