[hitr]

Many comments here say that it is an intrusion of privacy but a random machine sitting some corner of the world, parsing boatload of data(including yours) and detecting that there is an act of terrorism and in effect saving people. I am OK with that machine parsing through my data. I feel that when you write your email or uploading photos on FB/Instagram or send a tweet ,A machine is already doing that and many people still use all these services . Also technically some Facebook/Google/Twitter employee can look at all those data if he wants to.So i believe govnt should get a provision to look deep into the data if it needs to save a one person or a hundred people.I do reflect the concerns discussed here [1]

I am saying that a provision should be given for government or any agency if it helps saving people's lives but only with a warrant or better scrutiny for the request. Shouldn't that be the case?

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2013/jun/14/nsa-...

[eternalban]

Communication is merely one component of the necessary means for coordinated action. Lets push the hysterical notion of OP's "activist" to an extreme and consider the situation:

In this hypothetical scenario, humanity has developed the ability to remotely project thoughts to designated individuals. No technology is involved. Interception of projected thoughts is simply not possible. Plans are made, and then time comes for executing the plan, which must by necessity occur in the physical world.

Per your position, prevention of destructive acts by sociopathic actors in the above hypothetical world is not possible?

The freedom to associate and communicate unhampered by special interests -- corporate or governmental -- is a fundamental requirement of free societies. This fundamental requirement trumps every other consideration. For example, in the above hypothetical world, the society at large still has recourse to other means to detect and prevent destructive action. However in the world that you seem to be proposing, perfectly sane and reasonable actors can be trivially denied from the exercise of the fundamental right of free speech, communication, and association.

[tanderson92]

To be clear, you are saying that because you are "OK with that machine parsing through [your] data", you think that should authorize the government to parse through my data? Why should your set of values for privacy and lack of care for its preservation affect my right to privacy?

[hitr]

All I am saying is I am Ok if it saves the lives of innocent people. And I am definitely against people looking at my data ,a human should only get control through a warrant or tight scrutiny but that provision should be there in the system.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

OK, now imagine the machine detects something. What now? A human isn't allowed to look at it, if I understand you correctly? Or only with a warrant? What would be the basis for the warrant? The fact that the machine detected something? Also, who gets to decide about the code the machine is running? Could someone just decide to have it flag everything, thus giving the basis for a warrant for everything, thus allowing humans to look at everything? Could you elaborate?

[jacquesm]

Please send me an archive of all your data. I promise I will only look for stuff related to terrorism.

[Natanael_L]

But all the evidence we have so far says that kind of surveillance just isn't working. It only has negative side effects instead.

[reachtarunhere]

I wish I had enough Karma to downvote him.