3 ms·

> I'm not sure why you cited... Because such leaks will be used selectively, against anyone the data collecting agencies see as a worthwhile target. And no, b

• opendais 12y ago
  > Because such leaks will be used selectively, against anyone the data collecting agencies see as a worthwhile target. So because they don't remove all corrupt officials, just some, its a bad thing. Okay. I guess I don't really see that as any different as now and is completely unrelated to the quantity of recordings. > And no, blanket recording of all phone calls is not the "valid and good purpose" of the security apparatus, even if it occasionally exposes political corruption. That isn't what I said. I said exposing corruption was the valid and good purpose. It had nothing to do with recording all phone calls, merely some conversations in restaurants which is what you were talking about being recorded is a valid and good purpose. You don't get to just flip flop around and re-arrange the context of the subject you brought up [recording people having private meetings in restaurants involving illegal corruption] and [recording everyone's conversations]. These are two separate things.
  • fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    >So because they don't remove all corrupt officials, just some, its a bad thing. Yes! Absolutely! That's the worst-case. It means that the likes of Keith Alexander and James Clapper (and others who they may be in cooperation with) get to choose the government (to a degree sufficient to suit their needs).
    • opendais 12y ago
      Which, oddly enough, is what we have now.