3 ms·
I 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
by omginternets 11y ago
I 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