On 21/11/2016 19:38, shogunx(_at_)sleekfreak(_dot_)ath(_dot_)cx wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2016, Stewart Bryant wrote:
On 21/11/2016 13:58, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Usual argument from the police ("if you want privacy, it means you are
a criminal trying to hide something"). You will have a hard time
convincing people to buy it.
Whilst true, you also need to respect the notion that the job of the
police is to protect
us from the malevolence of some very evil people.
In theory, fine. In practice, you have situations where the police
are in place to protect the corporate revenue of very evil people by
brutalizing the innocent. See Dakota Access Pipeline for an example.
If the police are being excessive, then due process needs to be brought
to bare on the police, and that is something that the population needs
to do though its legal process. However I remain with the point that
many innocent and vulnerable people would become victims in the absence
of an effective police force, and that the role of the police is to
protect such people.
Stewart
- Stewart