Surveillance protects people from terrorism, and sacrificing some privacy makes us safer.
Do you agree? If not, what is your counterargument?
Surveillance protects people from terrorism, and sacrificing some privacy makes us safer.
Do you agree? If not, what is your counterargument?
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?’
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.
Because there’s a ton of proof they’re terrorists.