Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
1–10 of 93 posts
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#2[deleted]
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#3Oh really? What about weapons-armed civilians then?
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#4Oh really? What about weapons-armed civilians then?
[deleted]
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#5Maybe this is just false security, but I at least feel comfortable knowing apple and I are on the same side in this fight.
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#6Those who voted for Trump - did you know you were going to get this?
I think Trump's stance on Apple was pretty indicative of where things are headed.
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#7I'm going to go out on a limb here. I think he's right.
It's a red flag, not the only red flag. Like, if you use strong encryption, have associated with known drug traffickers, and served time in prison on a felony charge, someone might want to keep an eye on you. It's one of many factors that may or may not be worth considering. The use of strong encryption alone should not be considered bad.
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#8Oh really? What about weapons-armed civilians then?
Pick up that can.
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#9I feel that the gun debate and the encryption debate have a shared argument: in a world where X is outlawed, only the outlaws will have X.
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#10Just keep in mind that governments that take powers never give it back.