Have you ever thought that maybe there was a reason for those rules to be imposed?
It is really easy to put on the kindergarten act and to say that if the other side did it first, then it is okay. However, what is the difference between you and the other side then? The state has rather enormous power as it is and it is quite able to use it without letting the power trips of random individuals.
If you understand these programs they have... they do a meta-analysis of huge amounts of data. So while they use your data, there isn’t somebody personally looking at your data.
Whereas China/Russia has people tracking dissidents etc.
Not even in the same realm.
Im saying give a more nuanced legal approach so we can defend ourselves.
If it was just about meta data, maybe. However, the US (I accept that we are talking them now) have the lovely habit of imprisoning and torturing people on the bases of suspicion, without a due process, and without oversight or consequences for the fuckups. You see, the rules are exactly for the situations when some innocent bastard gets between the teeth of the machine and some middle manager orders for the body to be buried because murders look bad in the quarterly performance review.
It depends on who is doing the tracking and who the dissidents are. I think most will agree it’s in the interest of the country to track “dissidents” who are bent on inciting “race” wars and so on. Violent anarchists probably also get in that list. Basically any seriously credible threat to the state and its citizens.
In many aspects yes but you also don’t want surprises. Most members of those groups haven’t been caught doing criminal activity; does that mean you ignore them because they haven’t struck.
If you hear rumblings about a heist it makes sense to monitor the conspirators even if they have not yet done the heist.
