4 ms·
Interesting. I would argue that from a civil liberties standpoint, the efficacy really doesn't matter, the intrusion onto privacy from such a technology is so
by pnathan 11y ago
Interesting.
I would argue that from a civil liberties standpoint, the efficacy really doesn't matter, the intrusion onto privacy from such a technology is so great that it essentially grants a total awareness by the FBI into all the citizen's lives as they pursue their 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness'. And, if the surveillance is more effective, the ability to control harmless behaviour is more, and thus the infringement is worse.
- omginternets 11y agoI think the counter-argument (in this specific case) is that it's geographically restricted, which I think is fair from the standpoint of civil liberties. Does your example posit global dragnet surveillance, or are we still working within the frame of the superbowl exemplar?
- pnathan 11y agoIn the superbowl exemplar, you've determined to have near-total visibility on a large (200K?) number of people (assuming 75K going to the stadium, roughly 3x that in the general region). Many of whom are not going to be involved; they are just passing by on their private business. Why should the government inquire deeply into their private lives without a specific warrant (as opposed to a general warrant)? It strains the bounds of credibility that a specific warrant can apply to hundreds of thousands of people. However, if we set aside the idea of privacy as a civil liberty to be protected, and assume that the greatest good would be to stop a terrorist attack, I think that we would be justified in