Quote:
Don Magee wrote:
Maybe it was, but now it is a corporate thing. I personally don't trust the government to use power like that only in a emergency. I trust them to use it to quiet to voices of contrary opinion under the guise of terrorism.
Every new power the government gains is a bad one. That is my general stance on it.
|
But I thought that is why we had the whole balance of powers thing and the right to bear arms?
The assumption is that the government is GAINING power. I don't think this is true. They already HAVE the power, the bill admits that the government has the power and outlines the methodology for using it.
Don't necessarily like it either, but the fact remains that it exisit and I don't think I'd be comfortable on the flip side of us giving it up either, that thought is horrifiying as well, especially if terrorist groups can shut down our infrastructure.
I think our political system and economic system should be able to keep any abuses in check.
Kinda like the case of Wikipedia choosing to suppress news stories on the whole David Rohde kidnapping deal. DId they do the right thing or the wrong thing? Wikidpedia retains the ability to censor, however, it is not in their best interest to do so, and if they do, then they risk losing the trust of the public. However, is it ethical to interfere for something like David Rohde?
I think the issue is complex and not that easy to solve or mitigate.