Not to mention Baiyun Junjing Garden and Huiqiao New City, tell me the story around me. I have a lawyer friend. When we met each other, the community he lived in was built in the late 1980s. There were a total of four exports, all of which lead directly to the road. The railings have long been abandoned and the guards have become the same. The residents, indigenous and tenants In half, the dragons and fishes are mixed, and the rogues fly in a turbulent manner. He lost three battery cars within two years and was stolen in a carport downstairs. One time, he and I visited a bookmate in an upscale community. When they entered the door, they were ordered to register by the guards and they had to copy the ID card. I looked unhappy, but he looked envious and thought this was a model community. Within a few years, he quickly made a fortune, first changed his wife, then changed his house, bought luxury homes in the New City, troubles followed, access to the community, have to swipe cards, information is recorded, the new woman to monitor his whereabouts is simply easy. He complained to me and lamented the difficulties of life.
I asked him: Which one do you choose between security and privacy? In the past, when you lacked security, you chose to be safe. Now, you need to hide your privacy and choose your right to privacy. After all, this is a utilitarian choice. You have never faced this problem from a legal point of view and weighed the two. Severity.
He is silent.
Then, in terms of jurisprudence, how should we choose? To be honest, I don't know. Just as the dispute between efficiency and justice and the struggle between love and justice cannot be taken into account, which one to choose will arouse criticism, but it is understandable. There is no so-called correct answer here.
There is a more pressing question on how to choose: Do we have the right to choose?
According to the news, whether Baiyun Junjing Garden or Huiqiao New Town, access control upgrades and inclusion in the public security network, residents do not have the right to choose. They can question: 'If I often go out at night, will the police focus on monitoring me? 'However, it is necessary to do so, to upgrade the ID card lock into an IC card lock managed by the public security network. At least the news did not mention that someone was disobeying.
The infringement of privacy rights and the deprivation of choices may be even more thought-provoking. This is a consideration of community autonomy and respect and protection of minority rights.
Assuming residents have the right to choose, what will happen? Of course there will be no unanimous choice. Or, most people agree that safety is paramount, that they choose to upgrade the system, that personal information and images are integrated into the public security network, that only a few people, or even only one person, are alone in defending their right to privacy; or, the opposite is true (in China, the former is more likely). . In this way, is the minority obeying the majority or the majority respecting the minority? Can lonely dissidents eventually be expelled from the community?
The meaning I want to express is very simple: If residents do not have the right to choose, but can only passively accept, then the fight for security and privacy will ultimately be false. The hurdle that residents need to overcome first is not the community's access control, but the 'access control' of rights.
En Flanges,Carbon Welding Neck Flange,Welded Flange,Forged Steel Flanges
Zhangqiu Xinhao Machinery Parts Factory , https://www.xhflange.com