Originally Posted by DuckieHo
1) Legally define "generally lawful". Everyone in America has broken a law in the last week. If someone felt vindictive or threatened, they could go down the route of singling a person out and claiming it's the law!
2) How can a democracy or republic operate if there is no privacy?
Possibly lead to crime prevention? So.... the years of phone metadata has yield exactly ZERO direct terrorist prevention. You know what would also lower crime? Martial law.
Well your stance is equally naive, if not more. How much privacy should people be allowed to have? Security cameras should be banned. Capturing people's images might infringe on privacy. Warrants? No, that would violate maximum privacy. The internet? It collects data which might infringe on privacy, definitely banned. I mean you're requiring me to draw a line in the sand, so im just reflecting the same logic back to you.
Plus If someone felt vindictive or threatened, they could always kill them, or stage a crime, or do any number of things that would be just as bad if not worse and way more effective than threatening someone with a j walking charge. What you're describing is a police state. Many judges aren't unreasonable and would recognize something petty, or if the punishment was too severe for the crime. So yeah, they could single out someone and give them a ticket! how serious.. .
All you did was take my position and create a false dilemma. Furthermore, I doubt martial law would lower crime since there would be rebellion. That just doesnt make any sense.
Generally lawful should be pretty clear. I could write an entire essay defining generally lawful, but the idea is no major crimes like blowing up buildings, or murder, or theft, etc. I didn't think I would have to spell out the obvious.
And finally, how do you know that data has resulted in no crime prevention? You have some hidden studies I don't know that include confidential government systems?Edited by serp777 - 3/17/14 at 1:49am