![](https://lemmy.wtf/api/v3/image_proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Flemmy.world%2Fpictrs%2Fimage%2Fd01186df-3f7b-4b55-845b-d7b52578040d.jpeg)
![](https://lemmy.wtf/api/v3/image_proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Flemmy.world%2Fpictrs%2Fimage%2Fdb7182d9-181a-45e1-b0aa-6768f144911a.jpeg)
In theory, it works that way.
In practice, we’ve never openly stopped anyone with those systems.
When it comes time for them to justify the invasion of privacy, they don’t have any school shooters stopped, and they don’t have any Unabombers stopped. They don’t have any cases of stolen kids stopped. They’d be shouting all that from the rooftops to expand and extend that funding.
If they have actually stopped anyone, it’s at super-secret spy game levels. The guys you’re expecting them to stop aren’t even a concern for them. Worse yet, they may actually be rooting for them.
I think bi-partisan challenging of opinion pieces containing verifiable falsehoods is a pretty healthy idea for the public.