<a href=“https://imgbox.com/qlaBvJVW” target=“_blank”><img src=“https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/ab/b9/qlaBvJVW_t.png” alt=“image host”/></a>
The moderators of lemmy.ml show an unwillingness to accept rational discussion and demonstrate a flawed understanding of mutual respect.
Discussion continues here
Surveillance protects people from terrorism, and sacrificing some privacy makes us safer.
Do you agree? If not, what is your counterargument?
Edit:
Among the meaningless comments made by people who are incapable of rational thinking, these few are actually meaningful and reasonable.
From @Ildsaye@hexbear.net
Surveillance gives terrorists like the US and its Zionist appendage a huge advantage, and the working class should not be surrendering its data to them without a fight.
However those comments can only prove Surveillance are unacceptable in America and Zionist related countries, Can anyone provide a counterpoint for other countries like Russia, China, India, Japan, South Korea…
First a bit of advice. Your post combines two parts that really ought to be separated:
The first part is not well-received here because saying “we can give up some privacy for safety” in a privacy forum is not a popular argument. You’re welcome to make that argument, but if you do it in a “here’s my view, change my mind” style and act hostile to people that don’t engage directly or don’t take you seriously, it will lead to many downvotes, and possibly removals depending on the instance. You did get some genuine replies which is great, but, I think if you change your approach with the delivery, you will get more.
Second, next time please put the part about your grievances about the .ml mods doing (the stuff about rational discussuon and mutual respect) in !yepowertrippingbastards@lemmy.dbzero.com, strip out the insults (the meaningless and rational thinking part) and keep only the parts relevant to privacy in your post to !privacy@lemmy.ca . If you want to include the best comments from the other thread, copy them into a single top level comment instead of the post body, and your responses in a reply to that comment. I hope this all helps you.
My stance on the discussion topic: the only acceptable invasion of privacy to me is one where the information is relevant and specific to the purpose it is being collected, the public and the person who is surveiled are reasonably informed about it. As an example: Having a security camera pointing outside a building (government or private) to record who enters it is reasonable to retain evidence of crime or records of who enters. Having it collect and retain information of who passes by the building on their way to work with no intention of visiting the building is excessive. Having the information collected for the first, reasonable purpose later being sold or seized to be used for other nebulous purposes (“solve terrorism” without a specific incident as to why it is relevant, or to commercially track travel patterns between buildings) is also across the red line for me, however without robust legislation/court enforcement (edit: in the USA, China or anywhere), that’s not really within my direct control. I can only control up to the point I can avoid have that information collected in the first place. These general principles of mine you can apply to most of the privacy topics like IDs for age verification etc.