[fauigerzigerk]

Then the source of our disagreement is simply this: Is the definition of "criminal"

(a) Someone who has committed a crime

(b) Someone who was convicted of a crime he may or may not have committed

I was using (a). If you are using (b) then I understand where you're coming from. But I think it's not a good idea to use (b) because that would make everyone who is the victim of a miscarriage of justice a criminal when in fact they are not.

[elbear]

Almost every person on this planet has committed a crime at some point. Sometimes we do it, because we believe it to be insignificant. Sometimes we are not aware that we are committing that crime.

I watched an excellent speech of a law professor giving examples of people who broke the law without realising. Unfortunately, I don't remember how to find that video.

[fauigerzigerk]

Absolutely, and I'm not a proponent of the surveillance state as some here seem to think.

My point is that law makers define what a crime is. The effectiveness of law enforcement doesn't change that fact. It's not good to have laws on the statute book that wouldn't be there if only they could be enforced.

So if the surveillance state highlights the fact that we're all criminals, what that should tell us is that criminal law is in urgent need of a root and branch review.

The surveillance state is a very bad idea for many reasons. But saying that we reject the surveillance state because then laws could actually be enforced is a questionable argument. There are many better ones.

[CiPHPerCoder]

Start over from zero: We have these civil rights and no one, not even the government, may not impede on them. And then criminalize things that make sense to criminalize.

Odds are, in a few hundred years, we'll end up right back where we started.