Saddened! wrote:
I can tell the difference, I just don't see what the harm is. I really don't what harm will come to me if they do snoop? Why would Big Brother have any interest in little old boring me? Perhaps if you can explain that to me? Them assassinating me on public transport is a bit silly, so keep it to sensible, but detrimental, things that might happen if the Government agencies had complete access to monitoring my life?
I didn't mention anyone assassinating you on public transport.
But it is an entirely reasonable illustration of what can go wrong with entirely innocent people when the security forces cock up. After all, what could possibly happen to an electrician going about their life perfectly normally and legally?
There are plenty of other illustrations of incidences where the police have monumentally cocked up – "monumentally" as in mortal errors. The Harry Stanley case is just that springs to mind, since it happened very near where I live.
So to start with, if you cannot comprehend that the security forces and police are far from infallible, then you're staggeringly naive.
If you comprehend the above – and still think that giving the security forces even more scope for error (it has been acknowledged that, for instance, no amount of additional snooping powers would have prevented the murder of Lee Rigby), then you're plain daft.
If you do not understand and value the concept of privacy, you're also daft on that score too.
That you're apparently happy to sacrifice your own privacy is one thing: that you're apparently quite happy for everyone else to sacrifice theirs too, and daft enough to fall for the cretinous line about 'if you've nothing to hide', is yet another illustration of the parlous state of public discourse in this country.
