> From: Gary Nunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I have said on this list before that it is not always possible to have
> absolute freedom and absolute protection. (and no, we don't have to
debate
> the use of the word "absolute" here)
>
> Unfortunately, civil liberties and security always maintain a perfect
> balance, there is never a gain in one without losing something in the
other.
>
> Take the face recognition software for example, unbelievably, people
are
> still opposed to this. But yet these same people demand that the US
> government protect them from terrorist. They can't have it both ways. I
> still maintain the position that if you are not a wanted criminal (or
> terrorist), then you have nothing to fear from this system.
> The debate rages on about the government monitoring email and net
traffic.
> Again I say, if you are not doing anything wrong, then who cares if
your
> email or instant messages are scanned? If they are only scanning for
> suspected terrorist activity and connections, then you have nothing to
worry
> about.
False dichotomy. 'Evil'--> Fear Monitoring
'Good'--> No Fear Monitoring
The same argument is made by gun control advocates. 'Only Criminals will
have / use guns'. The Nazi's took away the guns of their citizens before
the holocaust. The Swiss have the highest percentage of guns /
population and also have the lowest crime rate. The entire reason hitler
didn't dare go into switzerland was the number of guns they had.
> When the government starts making moral judgments about your email and
> surfing habits, then they have gone too far and you have something to
> complain about.
Who says you'll know when they've made judgements about you. You just
get put in a database of people to be...dealt with. People to disapear,
or have fatal accidents, or...
> Personally, I am willing to give up some of my "perceived" freedoms to
> protect my children and the ones I love from more terrorist attacks. I
am
> sure that there are those out there that would disagree with this, but
I am
> also sure that there are 7000+ people's families and friends in New
York and
> worldwide that WOULD agree with this.
But giving up your rights is exactly what the terrorist want. You want
them to win.
> I think that the ACLU is a good thing. But I also think that they tend
to go
> to extremes to prove their point. Let me ask this, is the ACLU going to
step
> up to the plate and defend the civil liberties of suspected terrorists?
Is
> the ACLU (or anyone for that matter) going to complain if any terrorist
> attacks are stopped as a result of increased government monitoring that
they
> oppose? Is anyone going to complain about the government holding
suspected
> terrorists and material witnesses for an indefinite amount of time
while
> they investigate? Of course not.
Yes they will. They will fight as hard as they can.
>
> I get really annoyed at the comparisons people make of national ID
cards and
> increased surveillance to the Third Reich or other similar
organizations. It
> is not an "apples to apples" comparison. John put it very nicely in
another
> post:
> >This surprise attack against unarmed civilians
> >is completely unprecedented in the annals of
> >world history.
>
> At this point, two weeks after the terrorist attacks, you have to ask
> yourself what is more important, freedom or security? Guess what,
terrorist
> in the US at this very moment have the very same freedoms that we do.
Are
> you willing to temporarily give up some of those freedoms to help
ensure the
> safety of your family and children? If you are not, I think that I
would be
> worried.
No. Because once rights are gone, they never come back (cept alcohol).
