Thread: How much should a state monitor its citizens?
Okay so a "state" or government has the ability to monitor people. Possibly via phone tapping, internet tapping or foot tapping until you tell them stuff. I'm just asking how much should they actually be entitled to do, and what has to be done before it. I mean, citizens have a right to privacy, but the state probably also has a responsibility to protect it's citizens from the bombzors. Should they require a warrant or can they just collect information beforehand and use machines to look for suspicious activity? That kind of thing.
I'd give my opinion on the matter, but we all know how well that turns out.
I'd give my opinion on the matter, but we all know how well that turns out.
Only with reason (the government shouldn't just monitor people for its own sake), and then only non-invasively (invasive methods such as police searches and whatever the NSA does are bad).
Why with reason? If they think someone could be suspect, they can monitor the person for terrorist and crime threats, but nothing personal.
A warrant counts as one of the things for reason.
Why with reason? If they think someone could be suspect, they can monitor the person for terrorist and crime threats, but nothing personal.
A warrant counts as one of the things for reason.
I don't believe that anyone should monitor anyone else ever. All information should be shared voluntarily, and no "idea" should be owned. All "ideas," "inventions," "etc." should be public domain. There should be no police whatsoever, and no state. And no currency. (When you ask what "should" or "shouldn't" the answer by its nature should be idealized, utopic)
The state should both monitor everything and control everything and monitor nothing and control everything because there is no "state" as you put it, there is no uniform mind in the government, free of the desires and imperfections it is supposed to protect us from, there is only a collection of imperfect human minds carrying out duties to run the basic amities for most, and to gain more power for themselves, therefore that is why I say it should monitor nothing. If the state were to become a prefect entity, but perfection to humans to imperfection to all else and as a state should look after the land then a perfect state cannot exist.
The state should meddle enough to protect as many from harm as possible. weather that harm is crime or poverty.
The state should meddle enough to protect as many from harm as possible. weather that harm is crime or poverty.