|
|
|
|
|
by flaktrak
4683 days ago
|
|
The problem as I see it is that no matter how much they store. If they so wish they can search for you! The potential for abuse is just to high. Originally I was so what some random stranger at some big department might have some info on me. A friend said to me once "think of your worst enemy, whoever that may be, if they had every piece of communication you ever sent on the internet or if they had list of every website you ever went to, would you be worried?" That clarified things for me. Not that I have enemies in that respect (at least I hope not) but if I did would I want them to have access to this information. We do not know who has access to this info and business leaders (especially in countries other than the US) are having their conversations monitored and that info is apparently being passed to business leaders in the US. We can't have this. |
|
Fundamentally, this is what the social contract is about. The individual has a right to fight the state if the state no longer protects his life, liberty, or property. Clearly, the state is actively pursuing Snowden's liberty if not his life. And there's little chance it would protect Greenwald's liberty.
Thus, for the whistleblower, the state is their worst enemy.
And any of us may find the state has become, in the blink of an eye, our worst enemy. Especially anyone who operates a server.