3 ms·

> The technical term for that is 'your opinion'. The technical term is "my opinion and the opinion of every lawmaker" because no bill was introduced. What exa

> The technical term for that is 'your opinion'. The technical term is "my opinion and the opinion of every lawmaker" because no bill was introduced. What exactly do you think should be illegal but isn't? > That is dodging my point No, it isn't. There were many things in the leaks that nobody, including Snowden, thinks should be illegal. Intelligence agencies hacking Chinese systems is among them. This makes Snowden's actions bad even in your very lenient view of what leaks should be protected.

roenxi 7y ago
> and the opinion of every lawmaker Yes, and there is a very well known system for changing lawmakers when they have opinions people disagree with (ie, voting). The opinions of the lawmakers are important, but the mix of opinions that are allowed to become lawmakers depends on what is talked about in public. > What exactly do you think should be illegal but isn't? Well, I'm in Australia so my opinion really doesn't count. But we all have experiences in the 20th century that show governments building big facial recognition databases and surveillance systems is fraught with risks. There will be groups in America who want the entire surveillance system to be illegal. If I was an American voter I would want the whole thing shut down. The government literally can't be undertaking global projects and also be properly held to account for their actions if the voters are disallowed from being told about them. Even if I was happy with the system in principle it is likely that the individual actions are dodgy and corrupt. The costs and benefits can't be weighed up by a voter if both classified.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > governments building big facial recognition databases and surveillance systems is fraught with risks. Specifically, what in the Snowden leaks should be illegal? There were no facial recognition databases in there. So far, you have not given any reason why Snowden's leaks are permissible in your view.

roenxi 7y ago

> and the opinion of every lawmaker Yes, and there is a very well known system for changing lawmakers when they have opinions people disagree with (ie, voting). The opinions of the lawmakers are important, but the mix of opinions that are allowed to become lawmakers depends on what is talked about in public. > What exactly do you think should be illegal but isn't? Well, I'm in Australia so my opinion really doesn't count. But we all have experiences in the 20th century that show governments building big facial recognition databases and surveillance systems is fraught with risks. There will be groups in America who want the entire surveillance system to be illegal. If I was an American voter I would want the whole thing shut down. The government literally can't be undertaking global projects and also be properly held to account for their actions if the voters are disallowed from being told about them. Even if I was happy with the system in principle it is likely that the individual actions are dodgy and corrupt. The costs and benefits can't be weighed up by a voter if both classified.

lern_too_spel 7y ago
> governments building big facial recognition databases and surveillance systems is fraught with risks. Specifically, what in the Snowden leaks should be illegal? There were no facial recognition databases in there. So far, you have not given any reason why Snowden's leaks are permissible in your view.