Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

No, the question was, verbatim,

"What obligation does law enforcement have to regulate content that you and I, as open-Internet believers, agree is unlawful? Shall we allow illegal content in order to err on the side of caution?"

That question wasn't about surveillance. You keep changing the subject to surveillance, because you're unwilling to address the issue of whether we should allow illegal content.

What obligation does law enforcement have to regulate content? Not surveillance. Not NSA. Law enforcement. obligation.To regulate content.

Show we allow illegal content in order to err on the side of caution? Not should we allow surveillance. Should we allow illegal content. Content. Not surveillance. Stop changing the subject.



It was about surveillance. If you don't understand that, think again. To make it easier:

> What obligation does law enforcement have to regulate content that you and I, as open-Internet believers, agree is unlawful?

Translation: what obligation does law enforcement has to police Internet with surveillance in order to catch content that we agree is unlawful? Same can be asked about ISPs.

> Shall we allow illegal content in order to err on the side of caution?"

Translation: should we oppose massive surveillance to prevent power abuse even if it will prevent catching unlawful content?

To that I answered, that current surveillance is already abusive, so the question doesn't really start.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: