3 ms·

I meant malicious snooping, like a husband reading texts from his cheating wife. It's partial fear mongering, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.

by dm2 13y ago

I meant malicious snooping, like a husband reading texts from his cheating wife. It's partial fear mongering, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. "Nothing has changed to make it necessary now." That's pretty naive. If you don't want rampant terrorist attacks and criminal activity, then the government needs to stay one step ahead of the small percentage of citizens who do not want to follow the laws that keep us civil. Yes, some laws were created against the best interests of American citizens, but transparency will only help get those corrected.

smokeyj 13y ago
> the government needs to stay one step ahead of the small percentage of citizens who do not want to follow the laws that keep us civil These people who don't respect the rule of law.. why do you think they're not in government?
moens 13y ago
Wow, that's just unbelievable... You are saying: "...some [US] laws were created against the best interests of [all] American citizens..." because "...you don't want rampant terrorist attacks and criminal activity..." defined as "...citizens who do not want to follow the laws that keep us civil..." Reconstructed: US government has a system of laws that are against the best interests of all US citizens because some of those citizens don't like the laws the US government uses. Really? That's deep.
- dm2 13y ago
  I was implying that the majority of laws are reasonable and should be followed by all citizens. Monitoring unencrypted communications for dumb criminals who discuss acts that hurt society MIGHT be acceptable. But, there are some laws that might be outdated or against the best interest of society. I'm not sure how those situations should be handled when it comes to monitoring. I actually had drug and tax laws in mind and was hinting at the issue of politicians being paid and influenced by corporations against the best interests of humanity. Though tax laws obviously don't matter in the context of text message snooping, it's just an example to help reinforce the point that the legal system isn't perfect and neither are those who enforce it.

by dm2 13y ago

smokeyj 13y ago

> the government needs to stay one step ahead of the small percentage of citizens who do not want to follow the laws that keep us civil These people who don't respect the rule of law.. why do you think they're not in government?

moens 13y ago

Wow, that's just unbelievable... You are saying: "...some [US] laws were created against the best interests of [all] American citizens..." because "...you don't want rampant terrorist attacks and criminal activity..." defined as "...citizens who do not want to follow the laws that keep us civil..." Reconstructed: US government has a system of laws that are against the best interests of all US citizens because some of those citizens don't like the laws the US government uses. Really? That's deep.

dm2 13y ago
I was implying that the majority of laws are reasonable and should be followed by all citizens. Monitoring unencrypted communications for dumb criminals who discuss acts that hurt society MIGHT be acceptable. But, there are some laws that might be outdated or against the best interest of society. I'm not sure how those situations should be handled when it comes to monitoring. I actually had drug and tax laws in mind and was hinting at the issue of politicians being paid and influenced by corporations against the best interests of humanity. Though tax laws obviously don't matter in the context of text message snooping, it's just an example to help reinforce the point that the legal system isn't perfect and neither are those who enforce it.