[Silviarose]

Hey everyone, I'd just like to kick off a discussion about surveillance. The question is: what, if anything, can justify mass digital surveillance, and to what extent?

I suppose the most obvious justification given is national security, particularly counter-terrorism. The thing is, much of the surveillance involved is the indiscriminate collection phone records and various types of electronic metadata. Surely we require concretely targeted surveillance in order to justify the invasion of privacy? On the other hand, does it make a difference whether or not the authorities can actually read/listen to the messages?

There's also a 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' aspect to this issue. It's conceivable that some may feel that sacrificing privacy online is worth it in order to catch criminals. What do you think, convincing or not, and why?

[Itisi]

In my opinion, nothing can justify mass digital surveillance. It's exactly the same thing as tapping every phone everywhere. As the gov't needs warrants to bug or wiretap, so warrants should be required for digital snooping. There are Constitutional guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure and guarantees of due process. IMO indiscriminate digital surveillance violates both of these protections

[kuu]

You can look at, for example, United Kingdom which is has the most surveillance in Europe (if not the world). If it is there to prevent terrorism, it's doing a lousy job.
Unfortunately, now that terrorism is on the rise and the refugee crisis with ISIS has created this atmosphere of fear in Europe, it seems that people are willingly giving out their privacy in the name of counter-terrorism.
But I don't think giving governments the means to observe everybodys emails and phonecalls and smartphones is going to do anything to prevent terrorism. In the long run it is going to create a massive surveillance industry and equipment just waiting there for the potential political power that is going to use it to control the masses, to root out the opposition and those who think and act against the establishment.
Maybe it's not going to cause trouble for our generation but the generations to come will have hard time keeping things private, and I don't think they'll be so happy about it, even though it might save them from the astronomically small change of getting blasted away by a terrorist.

[MistyTiger]

I think that the government can find any reason to justify mass surveillance as long as they say that it is for the nation's security. I just find it so intrusive and unfair. Everyone is under suspicion until they find evidence that leads them to believe that a person is a terrorist or a threat to the country's national security.

I agree with kuu. The UK is no more safer than the rest of the world for all its surveillance. Terrorists are not stupid. They know how to decrease their chances of being caught before they terrorize people.

I do not like the digital surveillance because I do like my privacy. I do not like others keeping tabs on what I do. It is not because I have something to hide but I value my privacy. It is like, do I want people to watch me take a dump or watch me shower? No. I am not a nudist or an exhibitionist. There are some routines that are very personal. I consider going into email as personal as reading mail or getting medical results from a doctor.