Source: (2006) In, Erik Claes, Antony Duff, and Serge Gutwirth. , eds., Privacy and the Criminal Law. Antwerpen-Oxford: Intersentia. PP. 121-134.
“Despite their reflections surrounding opacity and transparency, I am not fully convinced by the case De Hert and Gutwirth make for ‘conceptual regime change’. Perhaps it is because of their conceptualisation of certain rules as (sharp) ‘tools’. As a notoriously inept D-I-Y’er I have learned that tools are usually less important than who is holding them. Something else Black and Decker taught me (and I guess De Hert and Gutwirth will agree): tools are great and they can be used for purposes you would never have considered. Yet, unfortunately, most people cannot be bothered to read the instructions, which are rarely pleasant literature. Those who do read them, often stubbornly choose to ignore them. That is why accidents keep happening, in spite of all technological attempts to avoid them.” (excerpt)
Your donation helps Prison Fellowship International repair the harm caused by crime by emphasizing accountability, forgiveness, and making amends for prisoners and those affected by their actions. When victims, offenders, and community members meet to decide how to do that, the results are transformational.Donate Now