4 ms·

"> We need surveillance Source? " A) There is no need for 'source'? Asking for 'source' does not count as an argument. Where is your 'source' for 'we got by fo

"> We need surveillance Source? " A) There is no need for 'source'? Asking for 'source' does not count as an argument. Where is your 'source' for 'we got by for thousands of years?' for example? B) We didn't 'get by for thousands of years' without surveillance. Spying has been part of statecraft for 5000 years. The very first textbook on any subject, written more than 2000 years ago - 'The Art of War' has a chapter dedicated to it. C) If you were ever exposed to what is actually going on in this and other countries, you'd immediately change your tune. It happens often. Here in Canada, we had a fuzzy new Prime Ministerial candidate who wanted to kill a new surveillance bill. Until he became PM and got his 'daily security briefings' as to the reality of the world. And 'poof' - his promise to overthrow the bill disappeared immediately as his naivte withered against the facts. I do not believe in a 'surveillance state' (i.e. arbitrary surveillance) and I generally believe that citizens should have the right to privacy as per other criminal issues. But I also believe that if you are building a bomb in your basement, and the Feds want to know why, they can get a court order and 'surveil' you.

titzer 10y ago
> But I also believe that if you are building a bomb in your basement, and the Feds want to know why, they can get a court order and 'surveil' you. I also don't think that mere suspicion of building a bomb in your basement gives the government scary powers over you. This is why there is such a thing as due process. Because you never know when you might be wrongfully accused.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  If the Feds thought I was building a bomb, they surveilled my email with a court order, found nothing and moved on, I could care less. It's when there's not process that's the problem. As far as 'accused', I'm not worried about that because I'm not building a bomb so there's no way they'd have evidence. They'd have to fabricate it, which is a whole other level of fraud. Again, a long as it's done rationally, then we'll be just fine. I suggest there are very, very few cases wherein people's live have been upended because of 'too much surveillance'. The 'no fly list' is one bad example, it's because we don't have ways to uniquely identify people, and there's no process for removal. So if you have the same name as a terrorist, you're out of luck. Or of you get on by accident - no process for saying 'hey, I'm a normal guy'. Again procedural failrues mostly. Or entrapment, or an accusation which turns out to be false that throws your life in a bind. But it's not that common, and usually the result of back decisions on the side of the Feds, not so much inherently bad nature of surveillance. One issue - and that is mass surveillance - LAPD has cameras to know where every license plate is going at all times ... that I don't like. They should not be able to record any licence plates unless there is 'cause' - for example. Same for facial recognition in NYC and London. I think we'll find the sweet spot on this.

titzer 10y ago

> But I also believe that if you are building a bomb in your basement, and the Feds want to know why, they can get a court order and 'surveil' you. I also don't think that mere suspicion of building a bomb in your basement gives the government scary powers over you. This is why there is such a thing as due process. Because you never know when you might be wrongfully accused.

jomamaxx 10y ago
If the Feds thought I was building a bomb, they surveilled my email with a court order, found nothing and moved on, I could care less. It's when there's not process that's the problem. As far as 'accused', I'm not worried about that because I'm not building a bomb so there's no way they'd have evidence. They'd have to fabricate it, which is a whole other level of fraud. Again, a long as it's done rationally, then we'll be just fine. I suggest there are very, very few cases wherein people's live have been upended because of 'too much surveillance'. The 'no fly list' is one bad example, it's because we don't have ways to uniquely identify people, and there's no process for removal. So if you have the same name as a terrorist, you're out of luck. Or of you get on by accident - no process for saying 'hey, I'm a normal guy'. Again procedural failrues mostly. Or entrapment, or an accusation which turns out to be false that throws your life in a bind. But it's not that common, and usually the result of back decisions on the side of the Feds, not so much inherently bad nature of surveillance. One issue - and that is mass surveillance - LAPD has cameras to know where every license plate is going at all times ... that I don't like. They should not be able to record any licence plates unless there is 'cause' - for example. Same for facial recognition in NYC and London. I think we'll find the sweet spot on this.