That's a ridiculous argument, as surveillance has a chilling effect. It's not a hard restriction of freedom, but that doesn't really make a difference, and soft restrictions are easier to hide and deny.

I actually have been having difficulty posting. /. incompetence or grand conspiracy?

I actually can't seem to post right now. Probably just /. issue, but I'm looking for black helicopters.

Thank you for your contribution.

I seem to be having trouble posting ATM, so perhaps there are some helicopters waiting to swoop me up . Pre-preemptive apologies if this all appears several times when /. gets it together.

Or, you spy in peacetime to create war. Wars usually are the results of growing internal or external tensions, and any country large enough to not be militarily curbstomped in a day has enough restraint to not launch a war without obvious precursors. Plus, spies have a long history of being massive idiots who fuck everything up, which is a good way to cause a war.

Or, you spy in peacetime to create war. Wars usually are the results of growing internal or external tensions, and any country large enough to not be militarily curbstomped in a day has enough restraint to not launch a war without obvious precursors. Plus, spies have a long history of being massive idiots who fuck everything up, which is a good way to cause a war.

or that the American government has the slightest inkling about trying to not be conspicuous.

In the long run, it can definitely make Canada safer. Prohibiting this behavior means that we won't do stupid shit that will cause even more enemies.to appear. The number of threats that the Anglosphere faces that we didn't create ourselves is incredibly small.

It's not a tradeoff at all. Our intelligence agencies are likely the biggest threat to our security today. We are giving up liberty to be in more danger.

That doesn't mean that we need to accept it, though.

And the practice being old and common says nothing about whether or not it's useful or justified.

The range of information a doctor has is much more limited, and outside of perhaps ER visits, would be given to the doctor with the patient's knowledge and consent. Yes, there is a lot of trust put in hospitals and doctors, but there's also means of oversight, which military intelligence doesn't have. So, doctors have less information with more oversight and more recourse for misdeeds, and we are still seeking to improve that privacy. How is this a good point of comparison again?

And the data would seem to actually support that. There's an increase in reported suicide attempts, but not in actual suicides. The two ways of explaining it that I can think of is that teens are trying to kill themselves more, but have become less competent at it, or that teens behave the same, but are more likely to get help.

Perhaps you should read my post more clearly instead of freaking out about me using the word 'market' in a way that you think it inappropriate. I made no claim that it was a free market, and I'm not opposed to regulation. I was pointing out that his argument about progress could be flipped around for a pro-regulation argument very easily, and arguing that such a simplistic view is absolutely pointless.