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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Najibullah Zazi - Wikipedia