4 ms·
The downside to running a huge domestic surveillance state is that it undermines democracy and the rule of law. The upside is you could use it to catch a lot o
by LatteLazy 4y ago
The downside to running a huge domestic surveillance state is that it undermines democracy and the rule of law. The upside is you could use it to catch a lot of murderers, rapists etc.
The US IS running just such a state. And democracy is in peril.
But the US does NOT use it for the only upside it might bring: less serious crime.
The US has created the worst of all worlds. Maximum risk, minimum benefit.
Is that clear?
- edgyquant 4y agoNice tangent. How’s this related to the fact agencies need warrants to pull data from other, unrelated, agencies?
- LatteLazy 4y agoIt's related because the point of warrants is to minimise this sort of activity. But having already maxed out the amount of activity (recording all that data from everyone all the time), the warrants become pointless. The moment the data is being collected, the risk is there. Paperwork is useful ONLY to the extent it stops collection, it's not a end in itself. It's just a means to minimisation. That is about 90% of my point. Everything ELSE is tangental. What I have written is basically the key point on mass surveillance. Everything else is at best extra and at worst irrelevant to the actual points.