3 ms·
> No amount of domestic "anti-terrorism" law enforcement would have the slightest impact on any of this, not until you crank it to the level of a genuine police
by semi-extrinsic 10y ago
> No amount of domestic "anti-terrorism" law enforcement would have the slightest impact on any of this, not until you crank it to the level of a genuine police state with zero freedom.
Also remember that Allied resistance in occupied Europe during WW2 was able to bomb military targets, produce submachine guns from scratch and distribute propaganda, while under heavy physical surveillance by the Nazis. Thus we know that practically any police state will not be able to stop determined fighters.
- jon-wood 10y agoWhile you make a good point the secret police forces of the 20th century would have killed for some of the surveillance tools they'd have access to of they tried it over today. No need to steam open letters and read them physically, phone taps which can automatically surveil entire cities making connections between people, cameras able to follow people's vehicles without carefully coordinated follow teams. Who knows how the resistance would have faired under those conditions.
- kbart 10y agoSurveillance technologies have went a long way since WWII. Now, when everybody caries a bugged device in their pocket and cameras are ubique, it's no brainer. Of course, I do not advocate losing our freedom in the name of security, but mass surveillance is only a political matter, we already have technology means to achieve it.