Somewhere there must be a balance point between total freedom with no security, and total govt surveillance with no liberty or privacy. But what is that balance point? If you could rewrite all the laws (and the Constitution if necessary), where would you draw that line?
Or put another way, what would the govt have to show to be able to limit your freedom and intrude on your privacy? That some serious threat exists somewhere? That some significant threat exists and you might be involved? That you personally are a threat? And how much proof is needed to justify the intrusion or regulation? Clear and convincing evidence? Probable cause? Reasonable Suspicion? Just a hunch?
I'm not asking whether any existing programs are good or bad, legal or illegal. Just where you think the legal lines should be drawn. Best answer goes to the most clearly written and logically consistent argument supporting why you would draw the line there, whether I agree with it or not.
2006-08-28
12:09:07
·
18 answers
·
asked by
coragryph
7
in
Other - Politics & Government