On Jun 17, 8:40*am, nestork wrote:
No, I think her answer was OK.

She said she'd rather the government was allowed to monitor people's
communications so that homegrown terrorists can be caught than people
having to feel unsafe everywhere they go, and as an opinion, that's
perfectly valid.

...snip...

I basically don't mind monitoring of 'public' activities, since it is
outside your home and affects people, seems like a reasonable loss of
'privacy', especially if all that surveillance is used to ensure
safety for all. But, such monitoring didn't provide much safety in
Boston. Plus, the IRS, is an example, proving to everybody, that govt
intrusion into your business will probably not be used for the
intended purpose [in their case, to prevent tax abuse] but used rather
for harrassment and control. Therefore, completely understandable why
citizenry has said, NO! to all this surveillance, because it is seen
as a tool to control, not make their lives any safer.