4 ms·
In 1984 they had audio/video monitoring inside every home. Today governments only have such monitoring in select public areas. That's a significant distinction.
by all_blue_chucks 8y ago
In 1984 they had audio/video monitoring inside every home. Today governments only have such monitoring in select public areas. That's a significant distinction.
- syshum 8y agohmm Cell phones in everyone pocket, Echo / Home Devices, etc etc etc Keep believing the government has no access to this data..
- all_blue_chucks 8y agoThe government has no access to that data without due process mediated by a judge. That is not the same as continuous surveillance.
- wooter 8y agoSnowden proved this was false.
- all_blue_chucks 8y agoThey still need warrants to get information on specific people.
- wooter 8y agono they didn't. it was self-reported abuses and no consequences.
- syshum 8y agoYea, sure, you betcha.... That assumes 2 things 1. that the Warrant process today is more than a superficial formality to give people the illusion of check on government power. When in reality to get a warrant they simply have to fill out a form, there is hardly ever any push back and it has been proven countless times that law enforcement lies via omission, or stretched the truth, or any number of dishonest unethical things to get warrants, on top of the fact the most judges simply approve 99.9% of all warrant applications. "Getting a warrant" should not be viewed as some panacea of government restraint 2. Assume that "if they got a warrant" then people like me would approve of government having access to that data. That "Getting a warrant" is a valid justification for obtaining data.