The clean are supposed to be safe, or so they say... But how is «clean» to be defined? Where exactly lies the difference between personal offences due to some misunderstanding – and intentional fraud? In other words: where begins crime? In rule of law, the line is drawn by legislation and courts.
This is also to be honoured in 21st century with everyone handed a mighty weapon. The Internet. Even so, as any weapon will do for self-defence, people may indeed go too far. Leading into the land of bona fide wild justice.
Thus, we need to know how to use that weapon to protect ourselves and make society safer. Otherwise, the weapon may turn dangerous, harming the overall sense of justice.
«For me it is altogether incomprehensible how people, having suffered for half a century at the hands of a repressive regime, are voluntarily giving up privacy, after succeeding in regaining independence,» wondered research fellow Julian Tupay of International Centre for Defence Studies, in Postimees last week. Coming from Germany where personal data protection is under special scrutiny.
Probably, the Estonian peculiarity is, at least partly, caused by our fast paced e-state development, occasionally unwittingly playing with fire. The simplification of people-to-people communications has also super-simplified business relations – all sorts of buying, selling and exchange.
In addition to portals possessing internal rules, dealing with auctions and mediating ads, people have their direct contact options – like over a forum or social network.
Even with acquaintances – to say nothing about total strangers – different opinions may develop as to the exact expected condition of an item to be traded. And should the upset party vent himself over the Internet (i.e. publicly), a well meaning person’s name may be smeared. On the other hand, it may also happen that a cheated party, after calling a cheat a cheat, is unable to prove the case – himself ending up accused, eventually.
Would we be best off with a society ruled and reigned by lawyers, the stiff strictness of absolute rule of law where people always have to prove the obvious? Hardly so – also, that would badly overload the courts. Therefore, we ought to aim at a cultured environment with unwritten laws bearing the bulk of the load. With lion’s share of problems solved by personal communications, agreements and compromises.
Should that prove impossible, there is the Law and Consumer Protection Board. The main point being to really think things through, lest just punishment (or seemingly so) turn into a double edged sword.