- 18 Apr 2017 11:59
#14798178
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?
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?