| ▲ | skynotblue 3 hours ago |
| Being anti-surveillance is the same thing as being pro-crime unless you provide an alternative solution to reduce crime. |
|
| ▲ | 0xbadcafebee 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Being pro-surveillance is the same thing as being pro-authoritarian unless you provide an alternate solution to prevent abuse of power. |
| |
| ▲ | skynotblue 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | We already have warrants, judicial oversight and public audits to prevent abuse of power. Not sure what's authoritarian about standard overt surveillance. | | |
| ▲ | big85 38 minutes ago | parent [-] | | No, not in the UK. XKEYSCORE surveillance tools are used without a warrant signed by a judge (the police grant themselves "warrants" covering unlimited uses for a period pending renewal, which I would have assumed constituted a "general warrant", something prohibited in UK constitutional law... but I am not a UK lawyer). MI5, MI6, and NCA are immune to Freedom of Information, and you cannot sue in open court; you can take it to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, who will not even let your lawyer see the relevant information to the case. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | big85 44 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Surveillance which violates the privacy or other rights of lawful citizens is worse than crime, I argue. The criminal fears the police, but the government obeys nobody. Security cameras in public areas, I don't have a problem. Government mandated scanning software running on my PC, yeah, I have a problem. It amounts to a warrantless search. |
|
| ▲ | pesus 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Beyond the fact that this isn't true, it's even less credible coming from a new, anonymous account. If privacy is really so dangerous and has no value, you should have no issue making comments like these under a publicly identifiable account. |
| |
| ▲ | skynotblue 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Every account is new at some point. | | |
| ▲ | pesus 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I noticed you skipped over every other part of my comment to focus on an irrelevant one. Is that an admission that you don't actually stand by what you say? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | franga2000 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This assumes surveillance prevents crime, or even that crime is worth preventing if surveillance is the cost. In terms of everyday threats to my life, billionaires are a bigger one than criminals. |
| |
| ▲ | skynotblue 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | People are less likely to commit crimes if they know the state has the tools to identify and prosecute them. Surveillance provides that capability, and reducing it makes solving and deterring crime much harder. The cost is manageable as long as it's used for the right reasons and that the data is kept secure. The benefits of deterring violence outweigh those risks. Billionaires may be a bigger threat but criminals are a threat nonetheless. | | |
| ▲ | JohnFen an hour ago | parent [-] | | > as long as it's used for the right reasons and that the data is kept secure Two things that we have yet to be able to even reasonably ensure. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | mrpeek 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
