Over the last little while, I have been ranting about the ever-increasing legislation to censor our communication.
Let’s not kid ourselves: governments today are opposed to information being freely available to their citizens. ‘Regulating’ things gives governments power over its citizens and collecting fees for ‘regulating’ is an important source of revenue for them. From UN on, the aim of governments is to ‘regulate’: it gives them both power and money.
It is only when we, the ‘unwashed masses’, show up – wielding pitchforks – and threaten to our legislators with defenestration* that they will unwillingly and grudgingly step back and allow us to keep some of our inherent rights and freedoms!
Still, when we do, we can make a difference: the New Zealand government is backing off implementing its controversial ‘Section 92A’ of their copyright law, which would force all ISPs to cut off internet access to anyone even accused of copyright violation! It looks like the internet petition, protests from all sides (except the movie and music industry) and the loud, loud outcry which echoed worldwide did have some effect: the government will send that section ‘back to committee’ for re-drafting! But, the fact that they are re-considering it does not mean they will come to a different conclusion… and passing it quietly, once the fuss had died down.
The fact of the matter is that governments will censor and restrict (sorry, they prefer the term ‘regulate’) as much as we, the citizens, will allow them to! Once something becomes ‘accepted practice’, there is grounds for it to become part of our laws, whether we like it or not.
What I’m about to write next is a little bit of ‘reductio ad absurdum’ argument, and I freely admit that. Yet, it does illustrate what I think is an important principle which we ought not loose sight of…
All around the world, we have accepted that governments have the right to regulate ‘the airwaves’. Of course, the word ‘airwaves’ is a misnomer: what is mean by this is the transmission of information using electromagnetic radiation (waves) which travel through the air. Whether it is the US FCC, Canada’s CRTC, Ofcom in Britain, ARCEP in France or any other nation’s body – the common thread here is that EVERY governments has established that IT has the RIGHT to regulate the transmission of information vie EM waves through the air.
It is on this basis that it licenses – and censors – radio and television stations. It regulates who is allowed to access which wavelengths, and when, and how.
Most of us have come to accept this as their ‘right’ – if not their outright role, and therefore DUTY.
We seem to have simply ‘accepted’ the premise that governments HAVE the right to regulate the transmission of information using EM radiation. And, undoing such an assumption will be difficult!
Now, I would like to remind everyone of my first law of human-dynamics: if a law can be abused, it will be!
How often have our legislators (or the bureaucrats who actually control the implementation of any government policy) passed a law, only to later expand its application in ways the populace never dreamed of – and would not have approved, had they understood just how twisted this law can be? (If you can’t remember, here is an example from Australia…)
Back to my main point: how does fMRI work?
Well, in layman’s terms, it is a medical imaging device which measures the EM transmissions of our brain as we think.
As in,when we think, our brain actually converts our thoughts (or, perhaps, makes our thoughts) as a form of EM radiation, which it then transmits these waves outside our brain… where this nifty machine can detect them.
But, did we not just accept that our governments have the right to regulate these???
Please, think about it!