3 ms·
You seem to be under the impression that there is a separate "evil" arm of governments that can be cut away somehow, letting you retain the good (or, rather, co
by mseebach 13y ago
You seem to be under the impression that there is a separate "evil" arm of governments that can be cut away somehow, letting you retain the good (or, rather, convenient) bits while getting rid of the bad ones.
That kind of fantasy is why we won't get rid of PRISM or the data logging directive. Government will only ever work for its own benefit, it's just that every once in a while, it's in its benefit to throw you a bone.
- rtpg 13y agoactually yeah, what you're talking about is something called checks and balances, where the bad is mitigated as much as possible. Even in your situation where government works in its own benefit, these are conflicting: - The executive wants the data logging because it makes investigations easier , so less police work - The judicial would not want this because it would make more open and shut cases, those reducing the need for workforce there Even here , by applying your logic, checks and balances work
- mseebach 13y agoThat would be a wholly more convincing argument had checks and balances actually prevented the data retention directive and the NSA excesses. They didn't. Now what?