Where do you stand on so-called lawful interception, where communications of a specific suspect are monitored after appropriate legal authority has been obtained based on probable cause (or your local equivalent)?
I fully support this where there is probable cause. If there is sufficient evidence to suggest that someone may be involved in criminal and/or terrorist activity, and the authorities have gone to a (non-rubber stamp) court and been granted a warrant, then I agree that they should then be permitted to use whatever tools are at their disposal to track that person's communication. This is basically what the fourth amendment is about (as my understanding goes).
What I'm opposed to is wholesale collection of everyone's data, regardless of whether or not they are suspected of a crime. People who are innocent should not be subject to government surveillance.
That's my opinion at least; I know that some people disagree on that. But regardless of where any of us stand, the public should have full knowledge of the ways in which the government carries out its activities and this should be decided in an open debate in a democratic manner.
