5 ms·
That is a convincing argument for a lot of people. A lot of people also don't consider that they forfeit their right to dissent if the government ever does anyt
by Cakez0r 11y ago
That is a convincing argument for a lot of people. A lot of people also don't consider that they forfeit their right to dissent if the government ever does anything that they disagree with in the future.
- slg 11y agoI'm not sure I follow that chain of logic. This information is collected for the purpose of "national security". Most people seem to be ok with that. If that information is used for another purpose, why can't they start complaining then?
- Cakez0r 11y agoBecause organised dissent against a government would be deemed a matter of national security. That might be fine and dandy now, but I think it's incredibly risky to say that there's no conceivable event in the future that would make you feel strongly enough to join a protest against the government.
- slg 11y agoI think that is a pretty big leap to make that our government would start crushing legitimate organized dissent. It is basically an argument that our government will be more evil in the future. However, if that is the true fear, why are we worried about intelligence gathering. Shouldn't we be more afraid that our now evil government has the strongest military in the world?
- facetube 11y agoSnowden provided evidence that the US is using its military spy apparatus to track the interpersonal interactions and day-to-day relationships of US citizens, on an ongoing basis, without meaningful oversight. That's not intelligence gathering, it's intentionally spying on your own citizens in defiance of a constitutional prohibition on that very activity.