2 ms·

Do we? Law enforcement seems overeager to label anything and everything terrorism if they possibly can. For instance, someone at my previous workplace vandaliz

Do we? Law enforcement seems overeager to label anything and everything terrorism if they possibly can. For instance, someone at my previous workplace vandalized prod in a fit of rage when he left and they called it terrorism because the system had utility companies as customers. Why would law enforcement be so interested in juicing their terrorism numbers if the real thing was plentiful? My hypothesis: real terrorism isn't plentiful, but the budget to go after it became plentiful after 9/11, and the people who benefit from the budget do what they can to keep it that way. Erosion of freedoms and judicial overreach are side-effects.

ChrisCinelli 7y ago
From their point of view, if technically possible, they would like to listen to any conversation and being able to spot in seconds conversations about any country security threat. It is easy to see that the risk is that if plaintext data is available, the data can be mined for a lot of other purposes including illegal or not ethical ones. It is also possible that eventually that data could leak to the wrong entities. And yes, in any big organization, the left hand may not know what the right hand is doing and, while one is concern in matters of public safety, the other may be primary concerned with the hegemony of its own power. So it is complex. But just assuming that you do not need them and they are just evil is a massive over generalization.
- pavel_lishin 7y ago
  > But just assuming that you do not need them and they are just evil is a massive over generalization. Fine, but assuming that they'll abuse any amount of power given is completely reasonable, in light of plentiful examples in the past.