| > Government surveillance is crucial for effective counter-terrorism, counter-intelligence, foreign intelligence, and law enforcement. There is more than a little truth to this, although I think the argument is relied on more heavily than it should be. Here's how I view the issue -- surveillance is inherently oppressive, but it also brings certain benefits in terms of safety. So it's a tradeoff. Where the balance should be is something that reasonable people can, and do, differ about. My bent is that I'd rather live free in a dangerous world than to live oppressed in a safe world. That's simply my bias -- I wouldn't want to live in a world that exists at either extreme, of course, but I want to preserve whatever freedom I have left. We have been seeing a serious erosion of that freedom over the past couple of decades, primarily because of the actions of the private sector, and I am highly resistant to letting it erode even further. You speak of surveillance (and other) abuse as if they are rare things that people make too much fuss over. I don't think that they're nearly rare enough, personally. So, while I am not a privacy absolutist, I am of the opinion that we've already set the balance far too towards the "oppression" side of the scale, and we need to resist having it slide even further in that direction. > If you deem your country incapable of holding that responsibility, I guess it is time to move to a country As a patriotic citizen, I consider it my duty to not abandon my nation when I think it is behaving badly. It's my duty to help correct it. |