isn't "if you can avoid it" the crux here? there's a trade-off between freedom and protection. and the idea was, i thought, that people decided that together, as a community, and created laws that reflect it.
but what's happening here doesn't follow any law. it's extra protection, and less freedom.
and what's so weird is the way people like you come out of the woodwork as apologists for this process.
when are you going to stop?
the usa already has laws so "protecting" and "un-freedom" that it seems the nsa can assemble huge databases on your communication. if you hadn't noticed, there's a huge fuss about that right now. yet the best you can come up with is to argue that less freedom than the current law provides is a great idea?
it kind of boggles the mind. how little freedom do you actually want?
