4 ms·
Officials aren't in a position to recognize the impact of their policy choices until it affects them personally. That's what requires this, and it's neither an
by epakai 3y ago
Officials aren't in a position to recognize the impact of their policy choices until it affects them personally. That's what requires this, and it's neither an invasion of their privacy nor their security, but a notice that they're stepping on people with their own actions.
- conductr 3y agoThen why do politician's with the means to do so, buy property that increases their privacy and security? Applying pressure and voicing discontent is a great part of democracy and should be protected. It's tone deaf to pretend these things aren't related to privacy and security. Despite best intentions, protesters are already agitated [that's why they're protesting] and it doesn't take much to turn to a security issue and if they can't check their mail or mow their lawn without being heckled, that's a privacy issue. I think we in America set ridiculous norms/boundaries on some things (things like this topic disrespecting the politician's personal life for something that is occurring in their professional/public life; also, feel that we care too much about their personal lives in general, sex/marriage/family stuff but that's another topic)