"We should be cautious but not completely resistant to Government monitoring."
The principle of warrant first, judicial check, then surveillance in that order is the protection that is being removed here. Governments ARE a threat to their people, as dictatorships around the world show. The principle has a purpose, to protect the people from oppressive government.
The argument that we face some mega threats that justify it is bollocks. Like Iraq WMDs.
The argument that they already had this power is also bollocks, like the Stasi were limited by the amount of paper and number of spies it had in the population, the Government was limited by the number of ears on headsets. Technology is removing those limits. Imagine a Stasi with todays technology.
"We will never be able to stop GCHQ / the NSA from monitoring what we do, we should just be cautious and make sure there are good measures"
They are us! They are not some separate race of people, they are not bacteria we fight with antibiotics. If we decide that enough is enough and this needs curbed then its not for GCHQ to decide to do it anyway, they should also not take sides with JS even if she rewards them with a big budget to spend.
- Nokia: Read our Maps, Samsung – we're HERE for the Gear
- Ofcom will not probe lesbian lizard snog in new Dr Who series
- Kaspersky backpedals on 'done nothing wrong, nothing to fear' blather
- Episode 9 BOFH: The current value of our IT ASSets? Minus eleventy-seven...
- Too slow with that iPhone refresh, Apple: Android is GOBBLING up US mobile market