>"People can't be watched all the time. They have a level of privacy and dignity and an ability to engage in free assembly or not. And the constitution protects

>"People can't be watched all the time. They have a level of privacy and dignity and an ability to engage in free assembly or not. And the constitution protects that and creates that kind of country for us," he said. I don't mean this as an affront but this is anthetical to one of their principal allies' views, in that the inability to be watched at all times is seen as a "direct threat" to security. We need to conquer this on two fronts: 1. Whether governments need to have access to everything 24x7. 2. Whether businesses can subvert the desires of people whom don't expressly give consent for such monitoring for sales. For point 2, take into consideration someone who wants to visit a person living in Quayside (pronounced: key-side, for our American friends). If they're not aware, they're caught in the dragnet surveillance of the area. Sure the people living there might consent to 24x7 monitoring but it shouldn't be an automatic assumption that everyone will. Consider those in the delivery services sector (e.g.: FedEx, UPS, the mail system, etc.) as a principal example of where compulsion might lead to undesired consequences. For point 1, I haven't any clue as to what to do about it. I get the rationale behind why security services might deem it a "necessity" to see all the things, everywhere (especially, after being burned from 11 Sep) but, as has been demonstrable from the past, there is nothing preventing it from being abused. It's solely based on the "trust us" premise and that has never worked-out well for anyone, given enough time.