Why stop there? I suggest making laws that will enforce strict curfews, limitations on areas of travel and also wearing mandatory unremovable collars that will enable security forces to immediately neutralise any citizen in case they turn out to be a terrorist.
I could say something about how this is exactly how terrorism wins, but that's not really the case. This is just how we lose.
These ideas of sweeping restrictions could be due to the same incompetent thinking that caused the problem in the first place, or might be a cynical leveraging of the situation to quench an unending thirst for more control and power, but whatever the reason, this is the kind of thinking that threatens the foundations on which free societies are built upon.
I was thinking these sort of policies are more representative of how democracy and security services are constructed: Politicians just want to show they are doing something, so swipe at an easy target. Security services ask for more information gathering tools for the same reason corporations try to maximise their profit: its their job to do so.
It's not going to change until people truly appreciate the trade-off of freedom vs. security, which probably wont happen until the majority really feel the pinch of losing the former.
You are right, but just that as a society we should stay vigilant in detecting and stopping companies that make profits using ways that are detrimental to society, the same should apply to politicians and security forces. There are checks and balances for that in a modern society, but they can't be watertight. One can only hope that society will feel the "pinch" (as you called it) early enough.
I guess where my metaphor breaks down is that as you said Corporations are constrained from doing things detrimental to society (at least in theory), and the way we constrain them is via law. Security services and politicians are harder to fix, given they make the laws. The only true influence on their behaviour is public opinion.
Comments
Why stop there? I suggest making laws that will enforce strict curfews, limitations on areas of travel and also wearing mandatory unremovable collars that will enable security forces to immediately neutralise any citizen in case they turn out to be a terrorist.
I could say something about how this is exactly how terrorism wins, but that's not really the case. This is just how we lose.
These ideas of sweeping restrictions could be due to the same incompetent thinking that caused the problem in the first place, or might be a cynical leveraging of the situation to quench an unending thirst for more control and power, but whatever the reason, this is the kind of thinking that threatens the foundations on which free societies are built upon.
I was thinking these sort of policies are more representative of how democracy and security services are constructed: Politicians just want to show they are doing something, so swipe at an easy target. Security services ask for more information gathering tools for the same reason corporations try to maximise their profit: its their job to do so.
It's not going to change until people truly appreciate the trade-off of freedom vs. security, which probably wont happen until the majority really feel the pinch of losing the former.
You are right, but just that as a society we should stay vigilant in detecting and stopping companies that make profits using ways that are detrimental to society, the same should apply to politicians and security forces. There are checks and balances for that in a modern society, but they can't be watertight. One can only hope that society will feel the "pinch" (as you called it) early enough.
I guess where my metaphor breaks down is that as you said Corporations are constrained from doing things detrimental to society (at least in theory), and the way we constrain them is via law. Security services and politicians are harder to fix, given they make the laws. The only true influence on their behaviour is public opinion.