Tomorrow Assange - - -

There is very little true argument that the things he exposed were actually serving the people of the US (rather than purely the governmental interests).

The people have a right to know the extent of surveillance over their lives.

These invasions were meant to involve checks and balances, and lawful process.

Anybody who posts he should be sent here will make me sad. - edgarblythe

NSA surveillance exposed by Snowden was illegal, court rules seven years on
NSA surveillance exposed by Snowden ruled unlawful

In any event - mass surveillance without warrant (issued for the purpose of investigation of a suspected crime), is unethical at best, and dangerous at worst.

So what do you think of drunk driving checkpoints that test every driver who passes through?

- were they secretive about the fact they were doing it?

- do you know the outcome of what they do?

- can this activity be misused in the future?

- can this activity's results be used to overthrow democracy?

- are they in your home?

- are they invading all your private conversations?

- are they collecting private pictures you send to consenting parties?

- are they collecting information on who all of your friends are?

- are they collecting information on everywhere you travel?

- are they doing this for every person in your country?

Should your country ever become corrupt enough that they start misusing this information, and that misuse become entrenched enough that excesive controll can be exerted on the population...democracy declines...potentially to the point where it is in fact, non-existent any more. My view is it is too great a risk, because human nature being what it is...many people have been, and will be motivated to misuse this mass surveillance. It is only a matter of when it (the corrupt acts, and the ensuing corruption) gains enough traction to be significantly misused...not if. It might take decades, maybe even a century...

Speed cameras I disagree with (largely ineffective for its stated goals). Road blocks for testing 1000 or so vehicle drivers for alcohol - debatable. All people using roads in vehicles are essentially, actively using dangerous weapons in a public place, and need to use them safely. That said, neither of these examples are mass surveillance of private lives (as per start of this post).

Sure they are. Testing someone for their alcohol level is an invasion of their privacy.

But while the mass data was being collected and stored without a court order, it was only being accessed with a court order.

Beyond the possibility of a malevolent government being able to identify members of organizations that oppose it, I don't see how abuse of the phone metadata program could harm democracy.

They are in a public place, doing a public thing, using a vehicle that is directly dangerous to the public (if of course misused). The key here is the place is public, the actions are public, the use of a vehicle is public, the affect on the public is direct if used incorrectly. None of this comes into your home, nor involves personal information.

Of course if you want to be asinine, you could argue that your blood alcohol level is personal information...except the information doesn't exist unless it is created by another person/organisation.

You're kidding? There is plenty of non-criminal private information that people don't want known about them, and you can use this:

- as blackmail against police heirachy (to get them to stop an investigation, or to investigate something in your favour)
- as blackmail against court officials officials (in order to get favourable judgements
- as blackmail against elected officials (to enact laws that allow greater corruption)
- information to discredit election opponents
- information to obtain surveillance photos in order to discredit election opponents
- information to get your pocketed official elected (through the above)
- information to get laws favourable to you passed (once you have enough officials in your pocket)

It is hard to see how a simple list of "who people call" could result in such coercion.

It is hard to see how a simple list of "who people call" could result in such coercion.

Never said that such would be used in such coercion.

Use your imagination about types of private information people don't want other people to know, that could be used for blackmail - there's quite a list.

Hence why your responses so far have seemed asinine - you appear to be going about purposefully being dense.

NSA warrantless surveillance — also commonly referred to as "warrantless-wiretapping" or "-wiretaps" — refers to the surveillance of persons within the United States, including U.S. citizens, during the collection of notionally foreign intelligence by the National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program.[1] In late 2001, the NSA was authorized to monitor, without obtaining a FISA warrant, the phone calls, Internet activity, text messages and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lay within the U.S.