3 ms·
I really don't care to have this conversation right now. It's been discussed over and over, and the feigned ignorance is insulting. The point here is that if y
by revelation 12y ago
I really don't care to have this conversation right now. It's been discussed over and over, and the feigned ignorance is insulting.
The point here is that if you are going to use this to catch petty criminals, you have to market it as such to the public. Instead, we have politicians conjuring up the image of imminent terrorist attacks and national security. It is a simple lie.
- pbhjpbhj 12y agoDon't start a conversation and then say you don't want to talk about it, just don't join in. I'm not now expecting an answer but your second para sounds like you only have a problem with the fact that the use of the data isn't explicitly laid out in advance. Even if it's set up to combat terrorism and other crimes being noticed are a side-effect; you'd be happy as long as it's mentioned that other crimes discovered will also be prosecuted? Your comment sold such police powers well, I'd imagine most of the electorate reading that using this technology has and will continue to catch the perpetrators of the crimes you list would find it positive. Other than expanding the people that know inane trivia about me I find it hard to see what liberties are really given up.
- tonylemesmer 12y agoProblem is, the law is being rushed in without checking or debate because of the stated purpose, however it would benefit from a debate if it being used for other purposes. That's the lie.