4 ms·
The article fails to argue that mass-surveillance is a required and proportional way to counter the threats mentioned. I think instead we should debate what lev
by slasaus 11y ago
The article fails to argue that mass-surveillance is a required and proportional way to counter the threats mentioned. I think instead we should debate what level of suspicion should be required to form a basis to conduct a surveillance on someone instead of the "we have to monitor everyone including the innocent continuously" dogma.
- Mickydtron 11y agoI actually had a hard time, early in the article, telling which side he was on. Specifically, "liberties also cherished by free people...the right of a nation’s citizens to be free of punishment by their nation except in accordance with positive law applied with due process" seemed in complete opposition to Cameron's statement that "For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone." If we want to have the right to be free of punishment as long as we obey the law, then we absolutely should resist this level of government surveillance.