3 ms·
> It's not like your communications are being monitored by random government employees at will for no reason. There's a specific safeguard here for personal pri
by cheald 11y ago
> It's not like your communications are being monitored by random government employees at will for no reason. There's a specific safeguard here for personal privacy, and that's through a court order.
That argument had weight pre-Snowden. It carries no water now.
- mozumder 11y agoYou mean the Snowden revelations that show filters that filtered out communications of US citizens without a court order?
- titzer 11y agoYeah, the ones that were badly misconfigured and easily circumvented, like how NSA employees were caught snooping on their love interests. I for one do not want to live in a society where the government is one .conf file away from putting my entire life story in plaintext under scrutiny.
- ross-life 11y agoA. The Snowden revelations show the US has spent years being dishonest about their programs. You'd be silly at this point if you think there is not a huge database of American communications too. B. "Filtered". Do you really believe that? Considering it's coming from the same government that also uses the words "enhanced interrogation"? C. The US seems to consider the rest of the world people with no rights at all. People understand spying on other countries, not spying on every other single person in the world with a phone and/or an internet connection. D. Your reasoning is faulty: > If government is monitoring your communications, then there's a pretty dammed good reason, as determined by a judge. Just because an "authority" says/does something does not mean it is right. It should be expected to explain its reasoning, openly and transparently. Then I can trust it. The current programs do not do that and have no intention of doing that. E. Random US government employees are literally reading your communications.