This is really about the capacity of the authorities to monitor the activities of its citizens.
Embellishing the issue with the emotive does not take the debate forward - children, terrorism, major crime, drugs, systematic fraud etc.
Ultimately it comes down to whether the government is trusted to use the intelligence gathered for the purposes intended (about which we may all agree) or widens the scope which infringes personal liberties or freedoms.
There is a simple choice - accept that unacceptable and criminal activity can flourish under a cloak of anonymity or allow monitoring and traceability.
I would anyway question whether the goals are achievable. If communication transparency was legislated, those so inclined would simply redouble their efforts to evade detaction.
As an aside, any of us can buy an internet device using cash (not a traceable card), and set it up with completely fake ID and free email accounts. The only risk is actually being caught in possession of the device - perhaps enhance police stop and search powers?
It is also worth reflecting on how conspiracies were traced pre the internet age. People talked to each other, made phone calls, sometimes sent letters, etc.
Police, unless they knew which phones to tap, where to place listening devices, cultivated informants etc had no ability to trace a source or conspiracy. In many way it is only the technology that has changed - not much else!
|
