verging_on_random

Some people … honestly

April 15, 2008 on 1:19 pm | In Uncategorized |

There are some people on all sides of politics who do their cause no good whatsoever by the style of their contributions to public policy discussions. They react to code words or phrases with an outpouring of emotion and hyperbole, drowning out any rational discussion in the process.

The ABC is a good example. Several times I have written that ABC TV (which is far from being the whole organisation) should be sold and the ABC should be revitalised with a new charter. Very little informed discussion followed because the conversation was immediately overwhelmed with cries of outrage that anyone should want to privatise the ABC … which of course had never been suggested.

Something similar happened on my own blog when I mused about the personal qualities of gun nuts. Instantly, commenters descended in righteous fury to explain that there were no links at all between gun regulation and the incidence of crime, which while untrue had nothing whatsoever to do with my post.

There was another example recently when a few journalists played the old, old game of ’something’s in the budget cos the government refuses to deny it’. This time the subject of the speculation was the so-called carer’s bonus (quickly joined by the ’senior’s bonus’). No matter that no decision had been made and it was all a media beat-up; the moral indignation flew thick and fast. Rudd was a low-life bastard totally lacking in compassion and if he didn’t change his mind they’d never vote for him again, ran the more emotional outbursts.

Now we have the non-story that the government wants to change the law to let employers read your emails!!! Once again, this has set off reflexive hair trigger explosions of outrage all over the place. Here, for example:

All you need to know about the ridiculous proposition that employers should be able to access employees’ emails is summed up in this tagline - “Gillard: All Workers are Possible Terrorists”.

Is there any limit to the absurdity of intrusions into privacy and civil liberties in the name of national security?

What’s absurd is the suggestion that employers being able to supervise what their employees do in the employer’s time with the employer’s equipment is a breach of civil liberties or infringes a worker’s privacy. There’s more here:

‘Yep, just another BS excuse to slowly but surely restrict our freedom’ runs one comment.

‘Once centuries-old freedoms are lost it will be all but impossible to ever reclaim them. Freedoms were not handed to the people by the goodwill of politicians and governments. They were the product of long difficult evolution and struggle’ starts another.

A third argues ‘I see little difference between this & opening our letter mail & reading it to see if we are “unsavoury”.’

All this bluster and bloviation without anyone being aware of what the government is actually proposing and without any apparent understanding of the existing legal principles. Nor is there any attempt made to develop a reasoned argument why it is wrong for employers to read workers’ emails; there’s just this over-the-top response of “OMG look what the bastards are doing now what is our world coming to I don’t know where it will all end.” It’s like some people just can’t wait to explode into righteous indignation about something.

Of course employers have the right to read workers’ emails. Of course they have the right to monitor workers’ internet use. Out of abundance of concern for privacy the law says employers have to inform workers that they intend to do this but even that seems unwarranted. Employees use email and the internet to conduct the business of their employer - that’s why they have access. It’s entirely legitimate for employers to monitor the use of email and the internet as part of normal supervisory tasks. Supervising employees’ use of the internet is no more a breach of privacy than checking that no petty cash is missing or that workers aren’t using the photocopier to run off the local footie club’s newsletter.

Sensible constructive consideration of public affairs is not fostered by this emotive, reflexive style of commentary. Taking a deep breath, doing a little research and trying to write a logical case in support of one’s point of view usually leads to much more constructive discussion. There’s enough ill-informed ranting on blogs like Bolt’s and Blair’s without everyone else joining in.