4 ms·
Not justifying mass surveillance but this is where the argument for mass surveillance comes in. Though I would argue about its effectiveness. I remember the rec
by actuator 6y ago
Not justifying mass surveillance but this is where the argument for mass surveillance comes in. Though I would argue about its effectiveness. I remember the recent British incidents claiming the suspect was under watch, but they failed to prevent those. Maybe they are not talking about the ones they prevented, but there are certainly examples where they failed even with info about it.
- read_if_gay_ 6y agoDefinitely not effective, unless you go full 1986. Softer forms of surveillance may prevent some attacks, but still carry huge potential for abuse which is not even close to worth it IMO. We have to remember terrorism barely kills anyone in relative terms.
- actuator 6y ago> in relative terms. In US certainly, some parts of the world definitely have it worse. But I think the fear and divide it generates between ethnicities/religions/countries is definitely higher.
- selectodude 6y agoYou can be under surveillance but unless the government is able to jail you on a thoughtcrime or take away your ability to use a vehicle (if you're ok ramming into a crowd you'll probably be ok carjacking somebody to get the required equipment), there's very little that can be done to prevent it.