3 ms·

If the potential for a few felony prosecutions for a few attempted crimes is your standard for abridging privacy, it was always a very low standard. People you

If the potential for a few felony prosecutions for a few attempted crimes is your standard for abridging privacy, it was always a very low standard. People you aren't watching are always committing crimes, even more than people who are being watched. If the potential for any sort or level of crime creates a legitimate purpose, there's a legitimate purpose in surveilling everyone, at all times. That won't happen, though, it will be governments and corporations surveilling everyone else while remaining completely opaque themselves.

sandworm101 4y ago
A few felony convictions? This isn't stealing a car or passing a bad check. These guys are charged with conspiring to kill police officers. They were found bringing guns and tactical items to a remote protest location while chatting about using those guns to kill people. Even if the cops were violating people's rights, this is not the best situation to be arguing for civil liberties. There are anti-logging and anti-pipeline protests where canada's cops have used similar surveillance. Those are the better situations for winning civil liberties debates. The trucker protests are very much an uphill arguement.
- themaninthedark 4y ago
  If you can't defend your rights in the worst case situation, then you will lose them. something something essential liberty for immediate security...
  - raverbashing 4y ago
    > something something essential liberty for immediate security... Something something quote taken out of context and repeated mindlessly
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  Cops signed up for the job knowing they might get shot at. Avoiding a bad day at work isn't grounds for violating people's rights.
- southernplaces7 4y ago
  >These guys are charged with conspiring to kill police officers. They were found bringing guns and tactical items to a remote protest location while chatting about using those guns to kill people. Could you define and point to evidence of exactly how many of "these guys" there were doing this? Can the government with its penchant for mendacity? There were many thousands and thousands of protestors. It's not hard to find a few casually discussing illegal activity and using that as a justification for painting the rest black. >Even if the cops were violating people's rights, this is not the best situation to be arguing for civil liberties. No, this is exactly the best situation for arguing in favor of not blatantly violating civil liberties, because it should especially be argued for groups that aren't part of the social mainstream. That's the real test of how seriously a country takes such rules about civil liberties. Any asshole can argue for civil liberties in favor of widely popular, media-favored protests against logging and pipelines.

sandworm101 4y ago

A few felony convictions? This isn't stealing a car or passing a bad check. These guys are charged with conspiring to kill police officers. They were found bringing guns and tactical items to a remote protest location while chatting about using those guns to kill people. Even if the cops were violating people's rights, this is not the best situation to be arguing for civil liberties. There are anti-logging and anti-pipeline protests where canada's cops have used similar surveillance. Those are the better situations for winning civil liberties debates. The trucker protests are very much an uphill arguement.

themaninthedark 4y ago
If you can't defend your rights in the worst case situation, then you will lose them. something something essential liberty for immediate security...
- raverbashing 4y ago
  > something something essential liberty for immediate security... Something something quote taken out of context and repeated mindlessly
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
Cops signed up for the job knowing they might get shot at. Avoiding a bad day at work isn't grounds for violating people's rights.
southernplaces7 4y ago
>These guys are charged with conspiring to kill police officers. They were found bringing guns and tactical items to a remote protest location while chatting about using those guns to kill people. Could you define and point to evidence of exactly how many of "these guys" there were doing this? Can the government with its penchant for mendacity? There were many thousands and thousands of protestors. It's not hard to find a few casually discussing illegal activity and using that as a justification for painting the rest black. >Even if the cops were violating people's rights, this is not the best situation to be arguing for civil liberties. No, this is exactly the best situation for arguing in favor of not blatantly violating civil liberties, because it should especially be argued for groups that aren't part of the social mainstream. That's the real test of how seriously a country takes such rules about civil liberties. Any asshole can argue for civil liberties in favor of widely popular, media-favored protests against logging and pipelines.