4 ms·
> TLDR: useless and damaging. You are assuming security against terrorism etc. was the main goal. I think that's completely not the case. There are no facts th
by forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> TLDR: useless and damaging.
You are assuming security against terrorism etc. was the main goal. I think that's completely not the case. There are no facts that support that mass-surveillance or measures compromising encryption have ever been effective at saving lives.
- nine_k 10y agoHow about illegal drugs trade? Well, literally anything, including planning a murder or even a burglary. Noble goals, aren't they? And, of course, political insurgency, mass disobeyance, etc, etc — just as a side effect. What the powers that be try to sell us is security without compromises. Security above all, no matter the price (as long as it makes the powers more powerful). I think there is a real value in lower security, when civil rights and mere privacy of millions of people are put above the police's ability so solve a particular crime. You see, keeping everyone in a max security prison would be most efficient in thwarting any crime at all, but we're not doing that, at least yet, at the expense of some crimes being committed. The society already demonstrates that this compromise is acceptable. But the power always tends to push the other way.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]