> The argument against it is basically that abuse of powerful surveillance technologies is inevitable precisely because the technology is so powerful.
What would be some examples of an abuse?
What would be some examples of a powerful surveillance technology?
For instance, what "surveillance technology" isn't already an internal diagnostic tool for day-to-day system administration for a telecom/service provider?
Only difference is who picks the target and them having oversight (likely having to provide a predicate/rationale). Why is this so bad?
If there's a lack of oversight, what rules and systems would you suggest to prevent abuse, as you define it?
What would be some examples of an abuse?
What would be some examples of a powerful surveillance technology?
For instance, what "surveillance technology" isn't already an internal diagnostic tool for day-to-day system administration for a telecom/service provider?
Only difference is who picks the target and them having oversight (likely having to provide a predicate/rationale). Why is this so bad?
If there's a lack of oversight, what rules and systems would you suggest to prevent abuse, as you define it?