The only problem with the 3rd point is that it sets a precedent that its ok to restrict civil liberties for x reasons. That future x reason could be valid, or it could be sinister and for political or national gain.
Now it becomes a discussion over whether preserving civil liberties are worth the potential of millions of lives (note its not actually millions of lives, only the potential, because that has yet to be seen). I'm not arguing either way just pointing out (logically), the true stakes.
2 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 18.7 ms ] threadNow it becomes a discussion over whether preserving civil liberties are worth the potential of millions of lives (note its not actually millions of lives, only the potential, because that has yet to be seen). I'm not arguing either way just pointing out (logically), the true stakes.