3 ms·
... this is an obviously terrible argument. If you surveil someone secretly and then decide not to act on the intelligence, they aren't harmed in any way. They
by superuser2 11y ago
... this is an obviously terrible argument. If you surveil someone secretly and then decide not to act on the intelligence, they aren't harmed in any way. They don't even know. The mistakenly assassinated are still dead.
- JupiterMoon 11y agoYes. They. Are. EDIT For example the mere knowledge of surveillance changes how people interact. This has a chilling effect upon speech that is not compatible with a robust democracy.
- Thriptic 11y agoAs long as the data is discarded after the fact. People can be harmed if that data is kept and then repurposed in unforseen ways which are harmful to the surveiled non-terrorist.
- the8472 11y agoso you're saying mass surveillance is victimless as long as nobody learns that they specifically have been spied upon?