Perfect Govt. Surveillance

[comperr]

With a government that can be trusted not to misuse their power (they would only use it to fight specific known crime that has been democratically agreed upon) , would you be willing to give them unrestricted access to all communication?

[TWilli1777]

I'd say no, just because of the "democratically agreed upon" part. Who is to say that one day the majority of the country won't decide something I do is a crime? Can't be having it bite me on the ass in the future.

[Karec]

I'd say no, whenever a system like that is in place there will always be an unethical employee that will abuse their privledges. Its like a lot of ideas, sounds great in practice except when you factor in the flaws of humanity.

[comperr]

I'd say no, whenever a system like that is in place there will always be an unethical employee that will abuse their privledges. Its like a lot of ideas, sounds great in practice except when you factor in the flaws of humanity.

I was aiming for a more is their something inherent about privacy that the government should be restricted. While this is a great argument for any real government (esp. the US of A) this debate is about a "perfect" government.

[Stitched83]

First of all, let me say that I don't believe there ever can be a perfect government, BUT, for arguments sake, lets say it was possible. I still do not think any government should have complete access to all communications. Every human being has a right to privacy. I've heard the argument 100 times after the "Patriot Act" was passed in the USA, that 'if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you don't have anything to worry about. This argument is missing the point completely. Would you want your grandmother to know everything that is said between you and your wife when your in bed together? Of course not, because it's none of her business, and some things we hold dearly personal, and are meant only for the person intended.

[alienatic]

It doesn't matter what bills get passed or who votes for them or anything like that... If the president/secret service wants to wiretap somebody, they'll do it, legal or illegal. They don't have to ask for permission from anyone, they just order somebody to do it. And once it's done they don't need to tell anyone.

[Shino336]

In the spring of 1984 Operation Gunman discovered Soviet bugs in 17 embassy typewriters.

Basicly, no matter if WE stop listening in, others will listen in in their place. Would you prerfer that our government heard what you said, or some guy 2,000 miles away. Now thats not saying that they don't already have bugs in our countries, but if we stopped listening, it would give them the chance to put in even more bugs... I mean, think about it, you don't write on a piece of paper, put a listening device in such and such shop, then the other guy writes back asking where to put it in the shop. No. They'd ether talk to each other, or call each other. That simple.


Shino336

[-Osiris-]

if goverment do perfect Surveillance

"who would watch the watchers"

also who ever heard of an uncorrupt goverment???

[bandchicky314]

Of course not. People need their privacy. That could become too dictorial too quickly.

[Goatboy]

Of course not. People need their privacy. That could become too dictorial too quickly.

This thread is 2.5 years old... I think this might be the biggest necro of the entire HTS board.