He expressed the most absolutely brainwashed take on why surveillance is necessary. It's difficult to take him seriously when his talking points couldn't have been written better by any three-letter agency PR department.

Do you have an argument for why it's not necessary or do you only have personal attacks?

Do you have a good reason to be defending obviously bad talking points? In the free marketplace of ideas, this one has evidently been assigned a value less than zero.

Asking for a rebuttal that isn't a personal attack is hardly defending. It should be the base level of discussion according to site guidelines.

It's a 32-day-old account named after the bad guy from a Star Wars movie. I'd be suspicious of them before even reading the comment, which was fairly bonkers. As for substantive rebuttal of their statements, others have already done it elsewhere in the thread.

edit: YIKES https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36166300

What?

If I was in a room with someone who said "I think the world would be better off if everyone in this room except me were dead", I think you'd understand my nervousness around and dislike of the person.

You said there should be 6.9 billion less people on the planet and when asked if you'd be one of the 0.1 billion remaining people you said yes and basically acknowledged you'd already said too much. If that's what you left up, I shudder at whatever this [1] might have been

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36166458

> If I was in a room with someone who said "I think the world would be better off if everyone in this room except me were dead", I think you'd understand my nervousness around and dislike of the person.

That's not what I said. Bye.

No, what you said was, you think the world would be better off if 6.9B people were dead and you were one of the remaining 100M. And what I'm saying is, those two statements are not very different.

Damn you are a certified sociopath. Welcome brother.