10-03-2013, 10:02 PM
I don't know if they have the right, but I don't object to surveillance cams in public places, or to my electronic and phone communications being scanned for keywords and such in order to assist authorities in ferreting out domestic or international terrorist plots, pedophiles, etc...
I would object if it became obvious that those scans were being used more as deliberate targeted unwarranted undercover attempts to ferret out non-violent criminal activity for prosecution, or to otherwise exploit/expose citizens.
Don't like the invasion of privacy, but prefer it to mass murderers and child rapists going undetected. Trade-off.
I do understand the opinion of those that don't see the increased risk of personal privacy invasion being worth the decreased risks to the public as a whole - I'm just not in that camp (at this point).
I would object if it became obvious that those scans were being used more as deliberate targeted unwarranted undercover attempts to ferret out non-violent criminal activity for prosecution, or to otherwise exploit/expose citizens.
Don't like the invasion of privacy, but prefer it to mass murderers and child rapists going undetected. Trade-off.
I do understand the opinion of those that don't see the increased risk of personal privacy invasion being worth the decreased risks to the public as a whole - I'm just not in that camp (at this point).