Split from "Encryption"

[woodchip]

I find myself agreeing with those who believe, as Slick nicely stated, "public safety and national security are primary roles for the government, in this current environment, I'm ok with erring to the side of invasive methods." But perhaps I am making the "middle ground" fallacy? Maybe in my desire to be flexible I am setting myself to be easily pushed over?

And yet you have no problem with the public safety being ignored when it comes to not controlling our borders.

[callmeslick]

I find myself agreeing with those who believe, as Slick nicely stated, "public safety and national security are primary roles for the government, in this current environment, I'm ok with erring to the side of invasive methods." But perhaps I am making the "middle ground" fallacy? Maybe in my desire to be flexible I am setting myself to be easily pushed over?

And yet you have no problem with the public safety being ignored when it comes to not controlling our borders.

because there is no issue from Mexican immigrants or Central American immigrants that has been shown past rare, isolated incidents. No one here has ever suggested abandoning border security, just pointing out the lunacy of 'building a wall' or 'deporting them all'.

[vision]

And yet you have no problem with the public safety being ignored when it comes to not controlling our borders.

I'm sorry, what was my stance on immigration again? Can you refresh my memory? Here's a hint: no you can't, because I've never posted about it. Slick has it mostly right, immigration policy needs to be sensible. Surveillance and immigration have overlapping aspects, but they are not equivalent, so it makes no sense for you to compare them that way.