"I don't resile from it one iota!
I can easily envisage situations when the requirement is SO strong that we need VERY strong measures!"
It is exactly this premise that leads to a tyranical Government. "He who trades freedom for security is deserving of, and will achieve, neither." History has shown that allowing Government such power always ends badly.
"Of the two, the right to life and safety EXCEEDS the right to privacy. Tell me you do NOT think so!"
A life without freedom isn't a life at all.
"In the same way, you are trying to avoid complaining about ALL surveillence, I would prefer NOT to use TOTAL surveilence. However, the liklihood of you GETTING your no-surveilleance 'ideal' is probably equal to MY total surveillence. Stop trying to claim a high-ground that doesn't exist, both of us are down and dirty with NECCESSITY!"
I don't need to complain about all surveillance since I have never argued that there should be no surveillance. My argument has been that there comes a point where the loss of freedoms and privacy is not worth the supposed benefit of security. My assertion is that your statement of drawing the line when "bad guys stop doing bad things" is provably false and always will be. Bad guys are still doing bad things but you wouldn't impose total surveillance. You directly contradict your own assertion.
Finally, lets not get into arguments about spelling and grammar. There are enough mistakes in your own posting to make it an excercise in futility.
Dave
|
|