Wow o.o this place boomed. While I have a minute not trapped in Solstheim (yay Legendary Edition for PS3!) I’ll see if I can stir up the pot.
In response to “Nothing to hide”.
Got a lot of hate (which, is completely understandable), but I think I might be able to better guide what I meant. The first thing I want to state is, it is not illegal to be a suspect. I feel there is a blur among some people as to what a legal suspect, and criminal, is. Per example: If I suspect someone of murder, and interrogate them with either a judges authority, probable cause, or a witness identification. This is not infallible, and sometimes innocents are suspects, and treated with suspicion (but that is not the same as being treated as a criminal). Likewise, if you are treated with suspicion for your searches, history, and interaction on public forums, which leads way for a search of personal information (much like in physical reality, where probably cause leads to warrants of search and seizure or arrest.), is that a violation of privacy?
As an addendum, the constitution does not protect the right of privacy, though the bill of rights does protect certain privacies (i.e. beliefs, self incrimination, search and seizure.), However, if the agent/agency can bring forth reasonable suspicion for a related search, or probably cause, to conduct complete search, then why/how is this different than in physical reality, is one is swerving on the road, hears loud yelling from an apartment building?
As BSOD, RandomMan and Brucker touched on, respectively, it is ineffectual to do nothing (as Random points out) so as to not upset people, as it will lead to no actual solution. However, as Brucker points it out, and I think the english jurist William Blackstone said (to some effect, or other) “It is better that 10 criminals be let free, than 1 innocent man suffer”.
Surely is the government does nothing, if fails it’s obligation to keep its people safe. Adversely, convicting innocent people defeats all fundamentals of jurisprudence.
As a personal belief, I believe we and our government lament far too much over severity of punishment, and how to catch criminals, and not enough about how to prevent crime. Legal repercussions tend to be one of the last things criminals account (thus, why they happen), therefore it is better instead to add some sort of reformation in behavior by either conforming them to a certain behavior, or using subtle deterrents (such as social taboo), which can be stronger than any law enforced by a body of government.
As you’ve probably noticed, I’m critical of how our justice system obsesses with the crime or punishment, much more than prevention, or reforming. We often forget about the psychological implications of things such as dysfunction, chaos, or crime. And we usually ask the wrong questions such as “How to do we punish this?” or “How do we catch this?”, rather than ask “How do we stop this?”. I don’t impose to have all the answers, but, do agree that we need to reassess what happens to criminals, and the sources of crime. Rather than the publics approach, which just demands they receive more years, or receive death (don’t get be started on social justice, which, consequently, helps prove my point about using sociological approaches, instead of legal ones). Otherwise, we will always be catching criminals, but never truly catching them.