First of all, the country I grew up in was South Africa, which history can tell you was almost destroyed by what people called "safeguards" at the time. The government was trying to rid the country of "terrorists" and it brought the country to the brink of civil war. So what is the relationship between these societal and intitutoional safeguards you refer to, and the warrantless electronic surveillance that was also on the front page of HN this morning with vocal opposition from the vast majority of this community?
edit: In case it wasn't clear, I don't actually believe the South African government was doing what it claimed - but believe when I tell you we had no idea just how bad the government was until after it was all over. My point was that safeguards aren't always what you think they are, and they they won't always be there. You can't decide to give citizens rights only when the government decides they need them.
edit: In case it wasn't clear, I don't actually believe the South African government was doing what it claimed - but believe when I tell you we had no idea just how bad the government was until after it was all over. My point was that safeguards aren't always what you think they are, and they they won't always be there. You can't decide to give citizens rights only when the government decides they need them.