Politicians selling mass surveillance as either “protecting the children” or “stopping terrorism” is a tale as old as time.
The point isn’t to have an easy win, but to both serve their donors and to make the surveillance state more powerful to crush dissent against their donors and themselves.
No, you don’t seem to see the point of my comment above: it DOES NOT MATTER what they mean with “protecting the children”. What matters is that as soon as you bind your cause to an unpopular one, you are just increasing your chances of losing. I care about SKG, and I don’t want it to fail because of a change of priorities. You are aware that Politics is a matter of pragmatism, aren’t you?
Politicians selling mass surveillance as either “protecting the children” or “stopping terrorism” is a tale as old as time.
The point isn’t to have an easy win, but to both serve their donors and to make the surveillance state more powerful to crush dissent against their donors and themselves.
It’s a traditional English practice at this point
No, you don’t seem to see the point of my comment above: it DOES NOT MATTER what they mean with “protecting the children”. What matters is that as soon as you bind your cause to an unpopular one, you are just increasing your chances of losing. I care about SKG, and I don’t want it to fail because of a change of priorities. You are aware that Politics is a matter of pragmatism, aren’t you?