4 ms·

The right for privacy and not being constantly filmed, monitored and recorded. That principle.

grugagag 2y ago
Not worried about leaks?
ahazred8ta 2y ago
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own." -- Patrick McGoohan, The Prisoner
rvnx 2y ago
If you voted for the lawmakers in power, it's your responsibility to hold them accountable for their actions and to check at that level. If you didn't vote for them, these laws still represent the choice of the majority (or at least of their representatives). Either way, surveillance laws are a direct consequence of our democratic process and must be acknowledged as such.
- XMPPwocky 2y ago
  Did you reply to the right post? You say "it's your responsibility to hold them accountable for their actions and to check at that level"- but all I see in the parent comments is people discussing politics. People saying "I think this law is bad" is a critical part of the exact democratic process you seem to hold in high regard. That's how you get a consensus among the electorate that can push representatives to oppose future surveillance legislation and repeal existing stuff. (If you replied to the wrong comment, and meant to say this to somebody proposing overthrowing democracy or whatever, disregard my comment, obviously!)
  - rvnx 2y ago
    I suggest to go and talk with the people who make the laws rather than make on-the-spot scandal with the agents. Because here, we have a series of people who don't like the law (potentially for good reasons). If the law is like that, it's because we have a "majority" (unless democracy is cheated) who voted for such things (additional control during plane boarding, to have border guards, to allow spying on private messages, etc). The "majority" defended their right; the right to feel safe. A bit like someone who does Open Carry in a state who doesn't want you to show weapons. It may be not dangerous if you openly have a weapon, but other people still voted against that for their own reasons.
    - gouggoug 2y ago
      > I suggest to go and talk with the people who make the laws rather than make on-the-spot scandal with the agents. Opting-out isn't "making a scandal". You can both opt-out and "talk with the people who make the laws", one doesn't preclude the other. > If the law is like that, it's because we have a "majority" (unless democracy is cheated) who voted for such things That is an idealistic view not grounded in reality at all.
    - chimpanzee 2y ago
      > it's because we have a "majority" (unless democracy is cheated) who voted for such things > other people still voted against that for their own reasons You are describing a direct democracy, not the representative democracy that actually exists. There are plenty of examples of laws, existent and nonexistent, whose status has little to do with the preferences of the general public. One need only look where there is a conflict between the general public’s interest and that of the government. Surveillance is prime territory.
Spivak 2y ago
Well we don't have a right to privacy anymore so it's hard to argue even a basic principle, thanks SC.

Not worried about leaks?

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own." -- Patrick McGoohan, The Prisoner

rvnx 2y ago

If you voted for the lawmakers in power, it's your responsibility to hold them accountable for their actions and to check at that level. If you didn't vote for them, these laws still represent the choice of the majority (or at least of their representatives). Either way, surveillance laws are a direct consequence of our democratic process and must be acknowledged as such.

XMPPwocky 2y ago
Did you reply to the right post? You say "it's your responsibility to hold them accountable for their actions and to check at that level"- but all I see in the parent comments is people discussing politics. People saying "I think this law is bad" is a critical part of the exact democratic process you seem to hold in high regard. That's how you get a consensus among the electorate that can push representatives to oppose future surveillance legislation and repeal existing stuff. (If you replied to the wrong comment, and meant to say this to somebody proposing overthrowing democracy or whatever, disregard my comment, obviously!)
- rvnx 2y ago
  I suggest to go and talk with the people who make the laws rather than make on-the-spot scandal with the agents. Because here, we have a series of people who don't like the law (potentially for good reasons). If the law is like that, it's because we have a "majority" (unless democracy is cheated) who voted for such things (additional control during plane boarding, to have border guards, to allow spying on private messages, etc). The "majority" defended their right; the right to feel safe. A bit like someone who does Open Carry in a state who doesn't want you to show weapons. It may be not dangerous if you openly have a weapon, but other people still voted against that for their own reasons.
  - gouggoug 2y ago
    > I suggest to go and talk with the people who make the laws rather than make on-the-spot scandal with the agents. Opting-out isn't "making a scandal". You can both opt-out and "talk with the people who make the laws", one doesn't preclude the other. > If the law is like that, it's because we have a "majority" (unless democracy is cheated) who voted for such things That is an idealistic view not grounded in reality at all.
  - chimpanzee 2y ago
    > it's because we have a "majority" (unless democracy is cheated) who voted for such things > other people still voted against that for their own reasons You are describing a direct democracy, not the representative democracy that actually exists. There are plenty of examples of laws, existent and nonexistent, whose status has little to do with the preferences of the general public. One need only look where there is a conflict between the general public’s interest and that of the government. Surveillance is prime territory.

Spivak 2y ago

Well we don't have a right to privacy anymore so it's hard to argue even a basic principle, thanks SC.