4 ms·
> Does the (real or perceived) need for immediacy justify the incredible level of invasiveness of this mass surveillance? "mass surveillance" this is not; inva
by irjustin 3y ago
> Does the (real or perceived) need for immediacy justify the incredible level of invasiveness of this mass surveillance?
"mass surveillance" this is not; invasive - absolutely.
What you're proposing, if I was a woman (I am not) to be searched is instead i have to give up my DNA to have them store on record in case I was the person who abandoned the newborn.
That's much closer to "mass surveillance" than a body search.
If given the choice, I would give the body search 100%.
- sokoloff 3y ago> "mass surveillance" this is not How so? I'm imagining they're intending to detain and investigate indiscriminately every woman of child-bearing age in the airport and on flights that recently boarded. That seems to meet the definition to me.
- irjustin 3y agoBecause it has a clear target and a very defined line. They can't keep doing it, that's the biggest part it stops. Mass surveillance has a definition[0]. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance#:~:text=Mass%20surveillance%20is%20the%20intricate,monitor%20that%20group%20of%20citizens https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance#:~:text=Ma....