An interesting twist in the privacy debate

This opinion piece in the New York Times reveals an interesting twist in the privacy debate: That the Internet often supersedes the laws made by certain governments to protect their people.

Basically, what happened is that a couple German men were convicted of murder but let out under parole under a law that said German media organizations couldn't reveal their identity, in an attempt to help these men start new, normal lives. Since Germany is a democracy, we can assume that this law is some form of voted-by-the-people-for-the-people system. The catch is that, with the Internet, people outside of Germany can still know who these men are, and when they write about the men, English-speaking Germans can know, too. Thus, the law is circumvented by Internet freedom.

I'm all for people's free speech on the Internet, but this issue is one that will surely come up again as the world becomes more of a globally entwined system and less of a country-by-country place. While sometimes the Internet can be a great voice for reason, to go around the restrictions of a government that doesn't mean well (think Iran), in this case it appears the Internet is just harming a government that is looking to protect its citizens.

What will be interesting is how this debate plays out in the future, with so much information out there amid the wide range of governments and freedoms they allow.

France, and freedom of speech

Anyone who thinks Americans politicians have it too easy should check out this piece by the New York Times, which reports that French politicans are essentially able to keep French citizens from saying critical things about them.

The Times reports that not only can French leaders fine people for "public insult toward a member of the ministry," they can also infringe on people's privacy by preying into their Internet comments and tracking down the people who post them.

"The Internet is a danger for democracy," one leader says, which I guess means that people being able to speak their minds is a danger to the politicans who connive their way into office.

It's one thing to make rude and unnecessary comments about politicians and leaders, but it's another when those politicans, who seem to think they're a member of some elite class that puts them above criticism, act in hideous ways then lash out at those who expose them. (If you're elite, act elite.)

The real problem with this whole case, however, is not that people can't speak their minds. Europe actually has very lax rules about covering politicians, as the Times reports:

"The French news media, like others in Europe, have long granted the political elite a number of journalistic accommodations, including the right to make prepublication revisions to interviews."

For all the cries of partisan reporting in the United States, as least the American press doesn't do that. Even if coverage sometimes gets slanted, American journalists report what people say and don't coddle political leaders. Of all people who could be granted "journalistic accommodations," politicans should be the last, due to their seat of power and overall sleaziness.

Stilted accountability is better than somewhat totalitarianism, and God bless America.