- Reaction score
- 4,266
- Points
- 1,260
Let's also remember that rules aren't normally in place for the 99.99999% of those who wouldn't break them in the first place, but for the rest who do (or, in the case of rules that change to tighten protections up, did).
As for info in "the system"* that's not supposed to be used for anything but authorized uses, some have doubts because other parts of "the system" that are supposed to protect info haven't always worked so well all the time - here, here and here, for example.
* - I know VAC info management systems =/= law enforcement agency info management systems, but they're both government systems holding info about us.
As for info in "the system"* that's not supposed to be used for anything but authorized uses, some have doubts because other parts of "the system" that are supposed to protect info haven't always worked so well all the time - here, here and here, for example.
I think that comes down to the classic arguement, "do we let a few scumbags free to protect everyone's rights, or do we lock up a few innocent folks and make sure we catch all the scumbags?" Anyone want to volunteer to be the innocent locked up wrongly in the latter situation knowing every last scumbag is off the streets? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?Bruce Monkhouse said:But then why everytime there's an incident [Boston, London, etc] when the Govt. announces "they were known to them" does the inevitable cry come "Well why didn't you do something?".....................sorry, ya' can't suck and blow at the same time folks.
* - I know VAC info management systems =/= law enforcement agency info management systems, but they're both government systems holding info about us.