https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

The law is not good with fuzziness

People tend to think of the law as … well … black and white.  Something is illegal, or it is not.  Or some act is a crime, some item is a weapon of mass destruction, some person is a terrorist … or not.

But definitions are fuzzy things, especially when you have a variety of people doing the defining, and especially when there's an incentive to keep expanding those definitions.  The citizenry shouting loudest to stop terrorists don't necessarily understand who's being defined as a terrorist (or what actions are prosecutable as terrorism) today. 

Which brings us to the NSA's surveillance programs, and the idea that they okay, because, well, it's only being used on terrorists ("But zey vere all bahd!")  Terrorism is a fuzzy label, though, and, worse, once you justify use of pervasive surveillance techniques on terrorists, then who's next?  Child pornographers?  Murderers?  Drug dealers? Movie pirates? Inside traders? Income tax evaders?

The pressure to use these tools, when available, is always there, and "Well, right now we're only use them for X, we'd certainly never use them for Y" is unpersuasive, especially when some folks hear that and start saying, "Well, hey, Y is pretty bad, too, and we've already made the investment, maybe we should …"

Mission Creep: When Everything Is Terrorism
NSA apologists say spying is only used for menaces like “weapons of mass destruction” and “terror.” But those terms have been radically redefined.

44 view(s)  

2 thoughts on “The law is not good with fuzziness”

  1. So what’s your point? There should be no surveillance under any circumstance by Law Enforcement? Because no where do you mention regulation, just ‘Surveillance = Bad’ because it can be expanded.

    1. Clearly some surveillance is necessary. Some, in fact, needs to be covert even in its methods. But the greater the power and secrecy involved, the greater the countervailing transparency for everything else needs to be in play, so that we can actually have some public understanding and debate about whether it’s necessary and how to prevent abuse. Instead, we get massively intrusive programs that only get known when whistleblowers announce them, and then get papered over by claims of national security and assurances that only the bad guys need fear. It’s arguably the process that’s broken here, more than what we (know so far) is being done.

Leave a Reply to ***Dave Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *