What's most frustrating is that every person that pushes for further intrusions and further dismantling of privacy and liberty hold themselves exempt for any number of reasons.
I'd also like to know where they draw the line? What's too invasive? At what point are they willing to (cringe) let pedophiles get lighter sentences, because a privacy intrusion is too extreme? As we march ever forward down the road of always-on blanket surveillance, we might need to start asking this question so we know exactly how far elected leaders are willing to go (and if they believe themselves to be exempt from such intrusions).
I'd also like to know where they draw the line? What's too invasive? At what point are they willing to (cringe) let pedophiles get lighter sentences, because a privacy intrusion is too extreme? As we march ever forward down the road of always-on blanket surveillance, we might need to start asking this question so we know exactly how far elected leaders are willing to go (and if they believe themselves to be exempt from such intrusions).