top | item 46981372

(no title)

toephu2 | 18 days ago

[flagged]

discuss

order

xboxnolifes|18 days ago

Not who you are replying to, but I think mass surveillance is bad and evil, period. So, any person or company contributing toward mass surveillance is bad.

Most bad things have some good part you can point to. Mass surveillance and all of the other police and government aiding technologies usually point to improved conviction rates or something similar. But making police more efficient at convicting people isn't the only goal of society. That's only one part of what makes up a country and it's society. And, as the saying goes: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

nilamo|18 days ago

That's beside the point? Gaining security by losing freedom was always on the table. What's interesting is the cultural shift toward not caring about losing freedom.

janalsncm|18 days ago

I think it is the point: there is a balance between freedom and safety.

For example, it is illegal to carry a loaded handgun onto a plane. Most people would agree that is an acceptable trade of freedom for safety.

There are places with even less safety and more “freedom” than the US so people who take an absolutist view towards freedom also need to justify why the freedoms that the US does not grant are not valuable.

toephu2|18 days ago

Everything I want to do in public I can still do.

What "freedom" is lost? I gain security and lose no freedoms (unless you are doing something illegal).

When property crime is up 53%.. plenty of people are willing to lose "freedom" whatever you are referring to, in exchange for safety.