3 ms·

English is not my first language, so "go after large numbers of citizens without evidence that they've committed a crime at all" sounds like "check there is no

by viach 9y ago

English is not my first language, so "go after large numbers of citizens without evidence that they've committed a crime at all" sounds like "check there is no crime", which sounds reasonable to me, please correct if I'm wrong.

onion2k 9y ago
If a crime takes place then the government should investigate and find who did it; the government should never be taking a large number of citizens and check they've done nothing illegal. When there are 1.3 million people to look at that essentially means the investigators don't have any suspects. If someone is murdered in Dallas it wouldn't be reasonable for the police to investigate everyone who lives there in the hope of finding the murderer. No one should be investigated unless there's a reasonable suspicion that they, as an individual, have actually done something wrong; looking at a legal website is not enough for there to be a suspicion.
- viach 9y ago
  I understand what you are saying. But lets imagine gov faced situations when just sitting and waiting for a thing to happen is just too dangerous? Think 911 or mass killing acts in schools? Don't mass investigation would be justified if helped to prevent that number of deaths?
  - onion2k 9y ago
    Don't mass investigation would be justified if helped to prevent that number of deaths? That's a very big 'if'. By all accounts mass surveillance and dragnet investigations don't work to find terrorists. Practically everything I've read on the subject (which admittedly isn't much) terrorists are stopped using information from more traditional investigatory methods like informants. Giving the government the power to investigate 1.3 million citizens who oppose it is an extremely high price to pay in order save lives that might be taken by terrorists. Whether it's worth it isn't a question I can answer easily.

3 ms·

English is not my first language, so "go after large numbers of citizens without evidence that they've committed a crime at all" sounds like "check there is no

by viach 9y ago

onion2k 9y ago
If a crime takes place then the government should investigate and find who did it; the government should never be taking a large number of citizens and check they've done nothing illegal. When there are 1.3 million people to look at that essentially means the investigators don't have any suspects. If someone is murdered in Dallas it wouldn't be reasonable for the police to investigate everyone who lives there in the hope of finding the murderer. No one should be investigated unless there's a reasonable suspicion that they, as an individual, have actually done something wrong; looking at a legal website is not enough for there to be a suspicion.
- viach 9y ago
  I understand what you are saying. But lets imagine gov faced situations when just sitting and waiting for a thing to happen is just too dangerous? Think 911 or mass killing acts in schools? Don't mass investigation would be justified if helped to prevent that number of deaths?
  - onion2k 9y ago
    Don't mass investigation would be justified if helped to prevent that number of deaths? That's a very big 'if'. By all accounts mass surveillance and dragnet investigations don't work to find terrorists. Practically everything I've read on the subject (which admittedly isn't much) terrorists are stopped using information from more traditional investigatory methods like informants. Giving the government the power to investigate 1.3 million citizens who oppose it is an extremely high price to pay in order save lives that might be taken by terrorists. Whether it's worth it isn't a question I can answer easily.