http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... d=1141524##The question is not whether we will have a surveillance state in the years to come, but what sort of state we will have. The National Surveillance State poses three major dangers for our freedom. The first danger is that government will create a parallel track of preventative law enforcement that routes around the traditional guarantees of the Bill of Rights. The second danger is that traditional law enforcement and social services will increasingly resemble the parallel track. Once governments have access to powerful surveillance and data mining technologies, there will be enormous political pressure to use them in everyday law enforcement and for delivery of government services. Private power and public-private cooperation pose a third danger. Because the Constitution does not reach private parties, government has increasing incentives to rely on private enterprise to collect and generate information for it, thus circumventing constitutional guarantees. Corporate business models, in turn, lead companies to amass and analyze more and more information about individuals in order to target new customers and reject undesirable ones.
A phenomenal read from, Jack M. Balkin, Yale University - Law School. You can download the entire article with one click.
He goes into deal of how our government has usurped our Constitutionally held rights in our Bill of Rights, to create a National Surveillance State, under the guise of "fighting terrorism." Safety at any cost, I would say. Only at the cost of all of our rights.
I think its important to remember that every tool they are using to fight radical Muslim extremist today is going to be used against every single one of us that resist the National Surveillance State in the future.
We've allowed our government to wield the power to capture all communications, electronic, phone, ect. without a warrant in an attempt to combat terrorism, but what are we going to do about it when they start using such technology against citizens that do not agree with such blatant violations of our Constitutionally held rights?
I don't like the look of it.