Reply #16: purpose served: I got a countering response [View All]

[dusmcj]

OK, groovy, I got a vigorous rejection. I'll hold that it's a fascist state dependent on what we do with the power we give ourselves, and that Doober is playing precisely that game, giving himself power, and then daring us to say that he can't do what he wants with it. You suggest that the power not be given in the first place. Which matches to some extent what the Bill of Rights is all about. Although it delineates the prohibitions against incroachment and also characterizes the acceptable exceptions, rather than being a blanket denial.

I gather that you conclude that a modern middle-class socialist-leaning state is always on a slippery slope to statist fascism no matter how good its intentions. I'm not ready to reach that conclusion yet, but I also can't tell you you're wrong. For my part, I certainly will work to prop up that culture that gives me that sense of entitlement and faith that mutual exhibitionism and middle-class solidarity will in fact protect me from busybodies and extremists who would seek to use information about my personal life to coerce me. Since were I to fail to do that I would be enabling the extremists from all parts of the spectrum who are hard to tell apart in their common desire to successfully vandalize all of civilization, the good parts as well as the bad.

Of course, none of this changes the underlying issue which Senator Feingold pointed out where it matters, and I reiterate here: the change in technology has changed the language with which we discuss surveillance, and the law has not yet caught up with that change. In that it doesn't consider new methodologies if only to prohibit them. Outlaw it outright, but whatever you do, the law needs updating.