3 ms·
The best way to "detect" would be to, obviously, read it. So yes, this is surveillance, and just because you have good intentions doesn't mean you're not wrong
by anonymouswacker 4y ago
The best way to "detect" would be to, obviously, read it. So yes, this is surveillance, and just because you have good intentions doesn't mean you're not wrong.
- no-dr-onboard 4y agoConnotation vs denotation, but I understand where you're coming from. Admittedly, I'm increasingly shocked that I've found myself on this side of the surveillance debate for this issue. I suppose this has something to do with my susceptibility to the "think of the children" tactic. What separates this from other "appeal to pity" tactics is that this bill is the source of this bill. This isn't a group of EU equivalent democratic/republican lawmakers who are pushing for a surveillance bill because they have their wallets padded with intelligence contractor money. This is a philanthropist who has track record of sustained, devoted, high-effort actions in fighting against this dark industry. I suppose the counter argument remains the same though, right? Whomever is granted the authority to surveil will ultimately misuse their access. Admittedly, I can't pull myself away from agreeing with that. What a mess.