4 ms·
That's the point. A watchlist with every human, and its friends on it, is kinda useless.
by malka 12y ago
That's the point. A watchlist with every human, and its friends on it, is kinda useless.
- GFischer 12y agoOr maybe it will end up as a high-tech version of the Stasi archives (if it isn't there already). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi
- bausson 12y agoNo way it's there, the Stasi did have file on most citizens, but it wasn't as well indexed, comprehensive, and easily searchable as what current government 'security' agencies have.
- draugadrotten 12y ago> A watchlist with every human, and its friends on it, is kinda useless. In the right circumstances, it would be very useful. Not for catching terrorists but for putting pressure on the people on the list. "We are only monitoring her because she is on the terrorist watchlist." "She is only restricted from air travel because she is on the terrorist watchlist." "She is only denied a fair trial because she is on the terrorist watchlist." "Please cooperate with us Miss President, unless you want us to tell the press that you have been on the NSA terrorist watchlist since 2001." Having everyone on the terrorist watchlist is very useful, when you are able to selectively choose if and when you are disclosing the fact that someone is on the list.
- malka 12y agoI don't get your point. With your use, they might as well have no list at all. It would be exactly the same as having everyone on it.
- draugadrotten 12y agoThe use of the word 'everyone' isn't literal. It's possible that NSAs list of suspects would not literally include every single human being, but it could still include too many. The Sheldon character is very funny on TV.
- GrinningFool 12y agoSounds like you got OP's point just fine.