“I wanted to enquire about the death of Mr Smith”.
“I’m sorry any personal information about Mr Smith is confidential.”
“I don’t want to know any information about him, just the date that he died.”
“We can’t provide the date of death, for anyone, dead or alive.”
“Well, they’d have to be dead to have a date of death, “
“We cannot advise you if Mr Smith is dead or alive”.
“I know he’s dead. I just want to know the date of death.”
“We can’t provide any personal information.”
“Ok, well how about I tell you the date I think he died, and you can confirm or deny it”.
“We can’t confirm or deny any date that Mr Smith was dead or alive.”
“So now you’re trying to deny that he even existed?”
“Any information this agency holds is of a personal nature and therefore covered under privacy laws.”
“So as far as you’re concerned Mr Smith doesn’t even exist if anyone asks about him?”
“Whether or not Mr Smith is dead or alive or even existed or exists is personal information and therefore
covered under privacy laws. As a result, confirmation of anyone’s existence is unobtainable through this
agency.”
“The Department of Citizens can’t tell me if anyone even exists? Due to privacy laws?”
“That is correct, if we were to confirm anyone’s existence then we would be liable under law and could be
prosecuted or incarcerated.”
“Prosecuted or incarcerated? Who by? According to the Department of Citizens, a government agency, no
one can be confirmed dead or alive or even existing. Who are you scared of?”
“WHO”
“Who?”
“yes WHO - World Heuristic Oligopoly”
“What?”
“No, WHO. They keep the records of all the people on the planet. Anonymous, depersonalised, encoded and
completely digitised. If we were to start providing information that validates the existence of people on an
individual level, then they would have to start taking personal perspectives on things seriously.”
“And they don’t want to take personal perspectives on people?”
“NO”
“What would WHO do?”
“What would WHO do? WHO would do what they always said they would do, when, where and how they
want to. Why WHO will do what they do what they decide to do...”
“What will they do?!”
“We’re not entirely sure, that’s covered under privacy laws.”
“So, if you were to confirm one piece of personal information about a citizen of this country an international
agency will put you in jail?”
“Yes”
“How do you know?”
“Know what?”
“That WHO would put you in jail?”
“We don’t know that is what WHO would do but under the privacy laws that is one of the consequences of
breaching the law”.
“That WHO will put you in jail”.
“Well, we can’t say WHO due to privacy laws, but ‘they’ may do that.”
“They?”
“Yes, they… you know…- They”.
“Aaahh… ‘They’?”
“Well, how are They going to know that you’ve given me this information?”
“Access to sensitive personal information is tracked via a digitised audit trail. If I looked at Mr Smith’s
records, then They would know I did.”
“Ah-ha! So, you admit Mr Smith exists!”
“This agency can neither confirm nor deny Mr Smith exists and the date of his death is a confidential piece
of information that is unable to be provided.”
“And now you’re admitting he has died! So therefore, he must have existed. We’re starting to get
somewhere.”
“Mr Smith’s date of death has not been entered into public record. Public record is not completed until seven
days after decease.”
“So, Mr Smith died in the last seven days, well I know this already, I could have told you the date and you
could have just nodded or shook your head!”
“That is not something They would allow me to do.”
“What - shake or nod your head”.
“That is correct, conformation or denial of Mr Smith’s death five days ago cannot be provided by this
office.”
“No, no fair enough. I wouldn’t want to ask you to do anything They might get you in trouble for.”
“Thank you, we take privacy laws very seriously in this office as you can see and any potential breach of
them is treated very swiftly.”
“Treated swiftly?”
“Yes, you see They are really We. And We don’t like to be forced to do anything We don’t want to. Taking a
personal interest in individual people may mean We have to have a heart or a conscience and Who would
want to have one of those? Gets in the way of providing efficient and meaningful censorship of the citizens.”
“Who are you??”
“Yes”
“You are WHO??”
“Yes”
“WHO are They, and They are Me and You”.
“You and Me are WHO?”
“Yes”
“Why would I want to censor myself?”
“Well, it’s easier than taking responsibility for yourself, isn’t it? Easier than standing up for yourself? Easier
than making thoughtful decisions, meaningful choices and considering humanity made up of dividuals or
individuals, isn’t it?’
“Well err yes I guess so….”
“Pardon…?”
“What?!”
“Yes, I do think you mean yes… Much easier to leave the important decisions to someone else, isn’t it? We
don’t mind who… As long as we don’t have to take any responsibility for ourselves.”
“Right, yes, ok. Who am I to quibble about these things? Who really knows best? Law is law for a reason I
suppose. Who am I to judge? Well, thank you for your time. I don’t want to say you were helpful or
unhelpful, after all who are you? A public officer trying to do their job. What sort of person would I be to
imply you were someone who did something illegal.”
“Thank you, We wouldn’t want you to think We were prepared to breach a law that is there to protect all of
us.”
“Protect us - from who?”
“Yes, that’s correct. Have a nice day.”
Comments