3 ms·

Here's the kicker though: everyone who defends this type of spying does so saying it's only to catch 'terrorists'. Even if we accepted the idea that this would

Here's the kicker though: everyone who defends this type of spying does so saying it's only to catch 'terrorists'. Even if we accepted the idea that this would be all it ever was used for...it still means every one of us, right now, can be surveilled, locked up on any excuse, and charged with terrorism. Protest the government peacefully, but in an area they don't like? Terrorist. https://www.aclu.org/national-security/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism https://www.aclu.org/national-security/how-usa-patriot-act-r... Really, break any law? Terrorist. http://wilmington.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/for-police-drug-use-seen-as-domestic-terrorism http://wilmington.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/for-pol... Do anything whatsoever? Terrorist. http://www.storyleak.com/everyone-now-terrorist-us-government/ http://www.storyleak.com/everyone-now-terrorist-us-governmen... Really, we're seeing this constant broadening of what can be labelled terrorism, and once you're labelled that, you effectively lose all your rights. With that, and pervasive surveillance, any act you make to change the government, or to voice your concerns as a citizen, makes you vulnerable to having all of your rights revoked. That's -terrifying-.

rhizome 13y ago
everyone who defends this type of spying does so saying it's only to catch 'terrorists'. Even if we accepted the idea that this would be all it ever was used for...it still means every one of us, right now, can be surveilled, locked up on any excuse, and charged with terrorism. This is because the US government (and Five Eyes countries) has not, and probably will never define what the word "terrorist" means to them.
- techsupporter 13y ago
  The definition of a terrorist is easy: someone who does something that the government does not like. Right now, for the United States, that definition mostly overlaps with what the governed people also do not like, such as ending people's lives and financial crimes and all that. The problem, at least for those not in charge, is that the definition can and does slip. The conundrum, at least for me, is that I am perfectly willing to accept that government--as an institution, not specifically any current government--is a good thing. Government can and should do things like build roads, provide mass transit, raise a military, promulgate regulations for things like the economy and the environment and the RF spectrum, and even make provision for health care and a social safety net. All of these things can and should exist in a modern country with a modern government. However, this only works if the people doing the governing recognize that they, too, are governed. Our (the United States) government has delegated so much to private entities and hidden agencies and "dark" budgets that the folks in those groups no longer need to feel as though they are limited. They _can_ do almost anything because our public government has _given_ them that ability. I don't think that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, just that a good idea can inevitably be twisted into something foul.

rhizome 13y ago

everyone who defends this type of spying does so saying it's only to catch 'terrorists'. Even if we accepted the idea that this would be all it ever was used for...it still means every one of us, right now, can be surveilled, locked up on any excuse, and charged with terrorism. This is because the US government (and Five Eyes countries) has not, and probably will never define what the word "terrorist" means to them.

techsupporter 13y ago
The definition of a terrorist is easy: someone who does something that the government does not like. Right now, for the United States, that definition mostly overlaps with what the governed people also do not like, such as ending people's lives and financial crimes and all that. The problem, at least for those not in charge, is that the definition can and does slip. The conundrum, at least for me, is that I am perfectly willing to accept that government--as an institution, not specifically any current government--is a good thing. Government can and should do things like build roads, provide mass transit, raise a military, promulgate regulations for things like the economy and the environment and the RF spectrum, and even make provision for health care and a social safety net. All of these things can and should exist in a modern country with a modern government. However, this only works if the people doing the governing recognize that they, too, are governed. Our (the United States) government has delegated so much to private entities and hidden agencies and "dark" budgets that the folks in those groups no longer need to feel as though they are limited. They _can_ do almost anything because our public government has _given_ them that ability. I don't think that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, just that a good idea can inevitably be twisted into something foul.