From: juan <juan....@gmail.com>
>better technology, better mass surveillance
That's a rather limited way to look at things. Let's consider: Are we better
off due to (computer and information) technology than, say, 1980? In 1980,
home computers were little more than toys, and the Internet as the public now
knows it was 15-20 years from existing. News was provided by four national
networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS) and local newspapers, with no effective
competition. People, generally, found it hard to talk (type) to each other,
other than face-to-face speaking. If you simply accept all of the positives of
the subsequent 37 years as a given, and then ignore them, and focus solely on
what you see to be the negatives, yes, you will get conclusions like "better
technology, better mass surveillance". But one of the results of that
technology was and is that we, the public, are far better able to monitor the
actions of governments, which ostensibly act in our name(s).
OUR 'mass surveillance' of the governments is very, very valuable. I have no
doubt that, for example, the Bush 43 administration got far more pushback on
their actions than did the LBJ administration 1963-1969, in regards to the
Vietnam war. And even more pushback in regards to Syria. As, I think, it
ought to be and needs to be.
Jim Bell
