6 ms·

I absolutely understand where you are coming from. However I think it is necessary we preserve those records, as the Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Archive

by jlgreco 13y ago

I absolutely understand where you are coming from. However I think it is necessary we preserve those records, as the Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Archives does, so that crime committed by the surveillance system and its members can be investigated (being able to prosecute individuals like Erich Mielke is essential to allow the population to regain trust in their new government), and the people should be allowed access to their own files so they can have insight into the full extent of widespread untargeted surveillance. You could consider such a preservation to be a shameful monument to what we became. It would be a lighthouse on the rocks, looking over the wreckage of countless ships, warning us to stay away.

aeturnum 13y ago
I agree that any information left over from a totalitarian regime should be preserved and available to the interested parties. There's a great deal of value in preserving the shameful events of the past. That being said, if I had to choose between stopping "shredding" (or whatever form the digital equivalent takes) and life / freedom / order / etc, I think I'd let them shred. We want those records, but they're among the least of many goals.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  I completely understand. This is actually something that I have 'waffled' on several times. What is putting me on the side of preservation right now is the hope that with preservation, future generations will benefit, but shredding the document would only help the existing victims. People living in Germany have something concrete to show their children when they teach them about the value of privacy. With that, hopefully the "anti-surveillance immunization" will span generations.
Gormo 13y ago
I think it's far more important to destroy the resources and apparatus that enables totalitarianism than to punish the people who participated in a previous police state after it's already collapsed. After the DDR fell, Mielke wasn't going to be operating the Stasi any longer. Going after people like him might bring some emotional closure to people persecuted under the regime, but if the regime is gone, that's all it can do: there's no argument for deterrence. If a new police state emerges, it's not likely to be administered by the same individuals who ran the old one. Keeping the resources used by the old police state on hand, and acting to cultivate public trust in the new government seems like a combination to be wary of. The corruptability of human institutions demonstrated by the existence of previous police states should caution us against putting excessive trust in any institutions.

by jlgreco 13y ago

aeturnum 13y ago

I agree that any information left over from a totalitarian regime should be preserved and available to the interested parties. There's a great deal of value in preserving the shameful events of the past. That being said, if I had to choose between stopping "shredding" (or whatever form the digital equivalent takes) and life / freedom / order / etc, I think I'd let them shred. We want those records, but they're among the least of many goals.

jlgreco 13y ago
I completely understand. This is actually something that I have 'waffled' on several times. What is putting me on the side of preservation right now is the hope that with preservation, future generations will benefit, but shredding the document would only help the existing victims. People living in Germany have something concrete to show their children when they teach them about the value of privacy. With that, hopefully the "anti-surveillance immunization" will span generations.

Gormo 13y ago

I think it's far more important to destroy the resources and apparatus that enables totalitarianism than to punish the people who participated in a previous police state after it's already collapsed. After the DDR fell, Mielke wasn't going to be operating the Stasi any longer. Going after people like him might bring some emotional closure to people persecuted under the regime, but if the regime is gone, that's all it can do: there's no argument for deterrence. If a new police state emerges, it's not likely to be administered by the same individuals who ran the old one. Keeping the resources used by the old police state on hand, and acting to cultivate public trust in the new government seems like a combination to be wary of. The corruptability of human institutions demonstrated by the existence of previous police states should caution us against putting excessive trust in any institutions.