waste of resources
I agree. However, those who don’t can respond as follows: waste of resources is better than terrorism
people are obviously scared
I agree. However, those who don’t can respond as follows: they shouldn’t be and I’m not scared.
Among the meaningless comments made by people who are incapable of rational thinking, these few are actually meaningful and reasonable.
From @Ildsaye@hexbear.net
Surveillance gives terrorists like the US and its Zionist appendage a huge advantage, and the working class should not be surrendering its data to them without a fight.
However those comments can only prove Surveillance are unacceptable in America and Zionist related countries, Can anyone provide a counterpoint for other countries like Russia, China, India, Japan, South Korea…
Among the meaningless comments made by people who are incapable of rational thinking, these few are actually meaningful and reasonable.
From @Ildsaye@hexbear.net
Surveillance gives terrorists like the US and its Zionist appendage a huge advantage, and the working class should not be surrendering its data to them without a fight.
However those comments can only prove Surveillance are unacceptable in America and Zionist related countries, Can anyone provide a counterpoint for other countries like Russia, China, India, Japan, South Korea…
Why is that? Surveillance can still be helpful if all people are targeted.
More surveillance = more crime detected, do I need to prove 1+1=2 for you as well?
If you are having trouble understanding, ask
People who use Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram are protected by the law, but they are also bound by the law at the same time. They do not materially benefit from government actions related to terrorism, and it is not in their interests to support them.
Many people accept surveillance because it does not seem to affect their daily lives, and not fully realize they are being deprived of their privacy.
Please help provide arguments against - surveillance does not significantly impact daily life and can be beneficial for national security.
Edited:
I agree. However, those who don’t can respond as follows: We do not have to choose between security and privacy, nor should we accept surveillance being used purely for profit. Instead, we can strengthen regulations and legal safeguards to ensure that surveillance is used responsibly and only for legitimate purposes.
Can you provide an argument for “Even with proper regulations, individuals’ emails and messages should not be accessible to governments.”
I will respond you with what @Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone said
As the one making the argument, show me a study that supports that.
I agree. However, those who don’t can respond as follows: We do not have to choose between security and privacy, nor should we accept surveillance being used purely for profit. Instead, we can strengthen regulations and legal safeguards to ensure that surveillance is used responsibly and only for legitimate purposes. When properly regulated and transparently managed, surveillance can enhance public safety without infringing on individual rights. Rather than opposing surveillance altogether, we should focus on creating clear laws, strong oversight, and accountability measures to prevent abuse and protect everyone’s interests.
Can you provide an argument for “Even with proper regulations, individuals’ emails and messages should not be accessible to governments.”
Made a new account to badger me?
If you are looking for logical proof: More surveillance makes it more likely to detect a crime that is being planned, which increases protection.
With a little patience, people can always find examples where mass surveillance appears to have been put to good use. They might say, “Maybe I am being surveilled, but it doesn’t affect my daily life. However, it could help protect thousands of others.”
Can you argue against the idea that “Although mass surveillance contributes little to preventing terrorism, even a small contribution is still important”?
Example of email surveillance being put to good use.
The Daily Telegraph reported that the plot had been uncovered by Scotland Yard, which intercepted an e-mail from a senior al-Qaeda member in Pakistan to Zazi, instructing him how to implement his attack.<sup id=“cite_ref-DailyTelegraph2009-11-09_40-0” class=“reference”><a href=“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najibullah_Zazi#Bombing_plot#cite_note-DailyTelegraph2009-11-09-40”><span class=“cite-bracket”>[</span>40<span class=“cite-bracket”>]</span></a></sup> The e-mail was intercepted as part of “Operation Pathway”.<sup id=“cite_ref-DailyTelegraph2009-11-09_40-1” class=“reference”><a href=“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najibullah_Zazi#Bombing_plot#cite_note-DailyTelegraph2009-11-09-40”><span class=“cite-bracket”>[</span>40<span class=“cite-bracket”>]</span></a></sup> Scotland Yard notified the FBI, which led to the operation that resulted in his arrest.<sup id=“cite_ref-DailyTelegraph2009-11-09_40-2” class=“reference”><a href=“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najibullah_Zazi#Bombing_plot#cite_note-DailyTelegraph2009-11-09-40”><span class=“cite-bracket”>[</span>40<span class=“cite-bracket”>]</span></a></sup>
Removed by mod
This is a friendly request for meaningful discussion
I agree. However, those who don’t can respond as follows: Surveillance is used for profit, yes, but there is no evidence that it was created solely for this purpose. It can still benefit most people and provide protection against terrorism.
I understand and agree with your opinion. However, most people wouldn’t even they are law binds. Just take a look at the user group of facebook, whatsapp, instagram… people who use it are mostly law binds and they are still using it.
With a little patience, people can always find examples where mass surveillance appears to have been put to good use. They might say, “Maybe I am being surveilled, but it doesn’t affect my daily life. However, it could help protect thousands of others.”
Can you argue against the idea that “Although mass surveillance contributes little to preventing terrorism, even a small contribution is still important”?
Example of email surveillance being put to good use.
The Daily Telegraph reported that the plot had been uncovered by Scotland Yard, which intercepted an e-mail from a senior al-Qaeda member in Pakistan to Zazi, instructing him how to implement his attack.<sup id=“cite_ref-DailyTelegraph2009-11-09_40-0” class=“reference”><a href=“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najibullah_Zazi#Bombing_plot#cite_note-DailyTelegraph2009-11-09-40”><span class=“cite-bracket”>[</span>40<span class=“cite-bracket”>]</span></a></sup> The e-mail was intercepted as part of “Operation Pathway”.<sup id=“cite_ref-DailyTelegraph2009-11-09_40-1” class=“reference”><a href=“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najibullah_Zazi#Bombing_plot#cite_note-DailyTelegraph2009-11-09-40”><span class=“cite-bracket”>[</span>40<span class=“cite-bracket”>]</span></a></sup> Scotland Yard notified the FBI, which led to the operation that resulted in his arrest.<sup id=“cite_ref-DailyTelegraph2009-11-09_40-2” class=“reference”><a href=“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najibullah_Zazi#Bombing_plot#cite_note-DailyTelegraph2009-11-09-40”><span class=“cite-bracket”>[</span>40<span class=“cite-bracket”>]</span></a></sup>
I think that’s mixing up two different things. Incarceration isn’t the same as surveillance, and a lot of people feel like surveillance doesn’t physically impact their daily lives.
That’s a strong counterpoint, but people are gonna start saying, ‘Why shouldn’t we believe the government if there’s no proof they’re terrorists?
agree, please prove the governments of Russia, China, India, Japan, South Korea are terrorists