4 ms·
This really depends on the details. If, say, one member of a mosque is under surveillance for good reasons and then you extend that to everyone attending the m
by arp242 3y ago
This really depends on the details.
If, say, one member of a mosque is under surveillance for good reasons and then you extend that to everyone attending the mosque for no particular reason other than "well, maybe we'll catch something, doesn't to try": that's probably not a good thing.
On the other hand, if the imam is preaching violent rhetoric, multiple members are under surveillance for good reasons, and there's good reasons to believe that the violence is an important part of the mosque community in the first place (rather than a relatively small detail): then that's perhaps not such a bad thing. You don't "accidentally" associate with that kind of thing.
Or: you probably don't need detailed reasons to put someone in Don Corleone's employ under surveillance.
- n4r9 3y agoSidestepping the law is unjustified regardless of the details.
- arp242 3y agoI was just addressing the "tracked my whereabouts just because I was in an organisation where a couple of other members have suspicions raised about them" bit.
- n4r9 3y agoBut then you're addressing a different point to the one I made! I don't disagree with what you're saying inherently. But the "sidestepping legal process" is crucial to why this is so problematic.