|
> First, pointing out that there are harms and she's aware of them, despite not addressing them, because she refuses to disclose her communications. Though I'm skeptical of how much a 3m42s interview can be said to represent the entirety of her views, I'd say she alludes to the harms by referring to such access as "warranted". That is, authorisation is restricted [because of the costs of unrestricted access]. > Second, that the spying will be used asymmetrically - you, dear citizen, will have all your communications recorded, stored indefinitely, and subject to discovery when some prosecutor or large corporation decides to do away with you. This law would apply to politicians too, right? If they're suspected of a crime, a warrant could be issued for their communication details. > But try and find out which corporations are sponsoring which politicians, who owns them, and what kind of deals those politicians are making in your name, and you'll meet a stone wall of silence - just like in the TTIP negotiations. As mentioned, if those are crimes I expect them to be investigated similarly. > I don't think this is a stronger argument. In fact, I don't think this is an argument at all. Sorry yes, my single sentence wasn't the entirety of the argument. I was referring to arguments that rely on the benefits of privacy, rather than defeating a strawman (my, as you say, literal reading of top-level comment). |
What warrant? How naive are you, there wouldn't be such a thing.