3 ms·
Please speak for yourself, instead of relying on what "we" or "the people" want for apparent authority. Sexts are actually able to be viewed, and have been in t
by rmxt 11y ago
Please speak for yourself, instead of relying on what "we" or "the people" want for apparent authority. Sexts are actually able to be viewed, and have been in the past:
http://www.businessinsider.com/most-nsa-abuses-are-self-reported-2013-8 http://www.businessinsider.com/most-nsa-abuses-are-self-repo...
You are right that people generally do take offense only when presented with gross and abject violations of their privacy, but to say that people shouldn't care about what the government is doing because the government doesn't (currently) do anything with it, is passing the buck along to future generations. Why even allow for such a massive potential for abuse to arise in the future? And again, documented abuses have already occurred, to say nothing of ones swept under the rug. Why collect the data in the first place if the government "doesn't use it" as you put it?
- smtddr 11y agoNo, OP is right. It's a collective "we". http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014 http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014 Most people trust USgov; apparently just last year we were only 2 points behind Japan. My impression of Japan is that most people there are very trusting of their society/rules/system/etc, so for USA to be just 2 points behind Japan is a significant(and disappointing) bit of info.
- rmxt 11y agoI take no issue with making it a sourced statement of fact, e.g., "75% of Americans approve of the X, Y, Z programs in a 2014 Gallup poll." But to vaguely reference the current state of public opinion and use that as a basis for a normative statement that approves of the government's actions is frustrating. It dodges a discussion of the merits of the programs in favor of a "the public approves it, and no harm is being done, so no one should take issue" sort of stance.