Surveillance protects people from terrorism, and sacrificing some privacy makes us safer.
Do you agree? If not, what is your counterargument?
Surveillance states are never created to protect the population. They’re created for profit, to protect profits, or to suppress organization the administration doesn’t like.
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.
If it’s created for profit, it will be abused. Profit motif never ends with the first dollar made. Every effort will be made until it’s in places it shouldn’t be, without restrictions on what it’s used for.
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.”
Write your own responses and stop using AI.
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.”
That argument falls flat when the government is run by terrorists.
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?’
Because there’s a ton of proof they’re terrorists.
There are two kinds of people. There are people that the law protects but does not bind, and there are other people that law binds but does not protect. These two classes are in conflict with each other and this can’t be overcome with words.
If they are someone that the law binds then they’ll either immediately understand what I mean when I say “the government is run by terrorists” or they’ll find out when they’re terrorized by the government. Law is class power, the terrorism is self-evident.
If they are someone that the law protects, then they’ll have no idea what I’m talking about and there’s literally nothing I could say or do that would convince them. They materially benefit from the government’s terrorism, it’s in their interests to support it.
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.
There are a lot of people on those apps who mostly are protected by the law. They’re not, like, Epstein clients or anything but their interactions with law enforcement often involve being pulled over and then let off with a warning, whereas someone else would be dragged out of their car and beaten half to death.
Also, never underestimate how many of them are bots.
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.
If surveillance does not seem to affect their daily lives then they are not bound by the law. They’re simply protected. They have nothing to fear because the government’s terror regime is not directed against them, they simply benefit from the security it provides them. You can not argue against them, they are simply conscious of their own material interests.
Privacy is only valuable if the government is a hostile force, but they have never experienced government hostility. They’re protected. They’re not the ones being dragged out of their houses by screaming masked men or put to work in prisons. They’re fine.
I don’t know that I agree with the null hypothesis. Why is the default assumption surveillance prevents terrorism.
Surveillance is often a response to terrorism, but do we have great examples of how our current surveillance systems have actually prevented terror? And while it goes hand in hand with policing, how much prevention can we directly attribute to surveillance.
And this is the more positive attitude. General data collection for building intelligence and selling ads does not appear to prevent terror.
I think that surveillance in general is a pragmatic cost of society but we desperately need to look at the systems we have in place. Is flock actually making people safer? Is mass facial recognition making people safer? How much crime is prevented because law enforcement (and advertisers) have near instant access to purchase metadata every time I swipe my card.
By the same token, community safety groups and neighborhood watch don’t make me innately uncomfortable. Nor is it surprising some people have cameras on their property or the bank needs to keep tabs on who’s entering and leaving.
I don’t entertain the idea that more surveillance = less terrorism. US Law Enforcement fusion centers haven’t really impacted white supremacy, but sure did make it easier to target and track protesters.
I think the important discussion here is more nuanced than “surveillance is good and we should lose privacy to be safe”.
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>
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.
That’s a strong counterpoint, do you have another one for other countries like China, India, Japan, South Korea… that is not deeply involved with Zionist?
Japan and South korea are just US vassals and heavily rely on their intelligence network so they are indirectly involved. India I’m less familiar with their surveillance apparatus but I know the country is full of corruption so I doubt it’s for the benefit of the people. from my understanding, china is under much less “oppressive surveillance” than western propaganda would lead you to believe, but on principle I’m still opposed to what they have set up as well.
Suck a giant bag of dicks troll.
It doesnt protect you from terrorism if the government are the terrorists.
agree, please prove the governments of Russia, China, India, Japan, South Korea are terrorists
Surveillance protects people from terrorism, and sacrificing some privacy makes us safer.
In logical discussions, the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim, meaning they must provide evidence for their assertion rather than expecting others to disprove 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>
Anecdotal evidence can be true or false but is not usually subjected to scholarly methods, scientific methods, or rules of legal, historical, academic, or intellectual rigor, meaning there are little or no safeguards against fabrication or inaccuracy.
This does very little to add any weight to your assertions. No effort is required on my part still.
If you are looking for logical proof: More surveillance makes it more likely to detect a crime that is being planned, which increases protection.
That’s still just an assertion on your part. Maybe you should surveil some books before making assertions.
this is logical proof, not an assertion
prove it
you can’t have a meaningful discussion without logical response
Among the meaningless comments made by people who are incapable of rational thinking, these few are actually meaningful and reasonable.
From @[email protected]
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.
From @[email protected]
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…
Incarceration protects you from thieves and murderers, and sacrificing some liberty makes you safer.
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.
people feel a lot of things
help prove their feeling wrong
I, nor you, are people’s babysitters.
Your are lucky if your friends and parents don’t use facebook, but I’m not so lucky and I’m asking for help
I’ve told plenty of my friends and family that they are behaving like children with no literacy abilities. I’ve also had productive conversations with those same people. infantalization often forces people to reapproach with logic (or get pissy which is funny).
sometimes you have to just hold your ground and stop offering concessions in the hope of finding common ground or an understanding. they aren’t operating on real data or rational logic.
Good for you, but I cannot afford to replicate your approach. Thank you for the responses
Don’t tell then anything personal, leave voice mail, or send photos.
FYI voice mail are surveilled
all those people should give me their banking info so I can make sure there are no fraudulent purchases. my surveillance will protect them. it doesn’t matter if I’ve stolen money from others as long as I don’t steal from them, it’s fine right? they benefit so harming anyone else is okay.
Don’t feed the trolls.
Dont Feed the AI
I will respond you with what @[email protected] said
As the one making the argument, show me a study that supports that.
You’re incoherent.
If you are having trouble understanding, ask
As the one making the argument, show me a study that supports that.
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>
That is why I specifically said “study”
Anecdotal evidence is meaningless, show me a study that proves a causal link between government surveillance and public safety.
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.
That’s not a logical proof. That’s the claim. That’s the hypothesis that would need to be studied.
More surveillance = more crime detected
Honestly I don’t want the Js to look what I do online.
nor do I
Is this a joke?
This is a friendly request for meaningful discussion
Among the meaningless comments made by people who are incapable of rational thinking, these few are actually meaningful and reasonable.
From @[email protected]
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.
From @[email protected]
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…
Surveillance is pointless if you don’t know who you are targeting.
Why is that? Surveillance can still be helpful if all people are targeted.
Because then it’s a waste of resources and people are obviously scared.
