5 ms·

But that's just a restatement of the OP's position ("Mass surveillance is never an appropriate solution"). You're not attempting to justify that position.

by flir 3y ago

danbruc 3y ago
That's just an axiom for me, no justification needed. My life is my life and it is not the business of the state to watch every step I do as long as I am not affecting others in any relevant way. You convince me that I or society as a whole would be better off if I allowed the state to constantly keep an eye on me, then I might change my opinion and grant the state the permission to violate my privacy.
- flir 3y ago
  > That's just an axiom for me, no justification needed Congrats, you've got a religion.
  - danbruc 3y ago
    That's nonsense, every worldview must be grounded in some axioms, that does not make it a religion. I can break it down somewhat more for you. The state has no powers besides the ones granted by its citizens. I value my privacy highly and need very good reasons to grant the state permission to violate it. Catching criminals does not clear the bar, there are other ways to do this that do not violate my privacy.
  - troupo 3y ago
    [flagged]
jtbayly 3y ago
It’s guaranteed by our constitution, among other reasons. Search of my communications for no reason is, by definition “unreasonable search.”
- flir 3y ago
  That document with 27 amendments?
  - jtbayly 3y ago
    Yes? If you want to get it amended, then by all means, make a case for why it should be amended. In the meantime you wanted to know why mass surveillance isn’t an option. The answer “because it’s against the law” is a simple, good answer. If you want to know why we decided as a nation to make that such a fundamental law that it is in our constitution, you could do worse than reading about what prompted the writing of the Bill of Rights. I agree with a lot of the original reasoning.
    - danbruc 3y ago
      The answer “because it’s against the law” is a simple, good answer. While often true, at all times there have also been morally wrong laws, so it would not be unreasonable to counter that being written into law on itself means nothing. So you should always be prepared to pull out and defend the reasoning behind a law, which you also hinted at in your following sentences.

But that's just a restatement of the OP's position ("Mass surveillance is never an appropriate solution"). You're not attempting to justify that position.

by flir 3y ago

But that's just a restatement of the OP's position ("Mass surveillance is never an appropriate solution"). You're not attempting to justify that position.

danbruc 3y ago

That's just an axiom for me, no justification needed. My life is my life and it is not the business of the state to watch every step I do as long as I am not affecting others in any relevant way. You convince me that I or society as a whole would be better off if I allowed the state to constantly keep an eye on me, then I might change my opinion and grant the state the permission to violate my privacy.

flir 3y ago
> That's just an axiom for me, no justification needed Congrats, you've got a religion.
- danbruc 3y ago
  That's nonsense, every worldview must be grounded in some axioms, that does not make it a religion. I can break it down somewhat more for you. The state has no powers besides the ones granted by its citizens. I value my privacy highly and need very good reasons to grant the state permission to violate it. Catching criminals does not clear the bar, there are other ways to do this that do not violate my privacy.
- troupo 3y ago
  [flagged]

jtbayly 3y ago

It’s guaranteed by our constitution, among other reasons. Search of my communications for no reason is, by definition “unreasonable search.”

flir 3y ago
That document with 27 amendments?
- jtbayly 3y ago
  Yes? If you want to get it amended, then by all means, make a case for why it should be amended. In the meantime you wanted to know why mass surveillance isn’t an option. The answer “because it’s against the law” is a simple, good answer. If you want to know why we decided as a nation to make that such a fundamental law that it is in our constitution, you could do worse than reading about what prompted the writing of the Bill of Rights. I agree with a lot of the original reasoning.
  - danbruc 3y ago
    The answer “because it’s against the law” is a simple, good answer. While often true, at all times there have also been morally wrong laws, so it would not be unreasonable to counter that being written into law on itself means nothing. So you should always be prepared to pull out and defend the reasoning behind a law, which you also hinted at in your following sentences.