I feel that as long as you have nothing to hide yourself and it is for the safety of our society one should mind that there is less privacy. I at least would not mind!

As long as it is going to be read mainly my machines checking if I am ordering chemical for bombs or so... I don't really care...

I totally agree, Im happy to give up my privacy if that means that I am being kept safe from terrorism and other forms of threatenings. I believe that if you do not have anything to hide, why would it be a problem that the state keeps an eye on things to keep you safe?

I agree, I'd rather be safe and I have nothing to hide. I would be nice though if they only check our data for strange actions, words etc. about terrorism or illegal things.

I don't have anything to hide, and i don't think the governments has another motive besides keeping the country safe... so i agree

It is for the safety of the population so I would say that I agree. Although of course there is always the debate of how far can they go.

Als je niets te verbergen hebt, lijkt het mij een vrij simpele vraag. Natuurlijk mogen ze info van mij gebruiken om gevaarlijke mensen op te sporen. Als het bij die informatie blijft en ze niets tegen mij mogen gebruiken bij wet ben ik tevreden

Determining our safety is tricky. We don't have the resources and information of the state. What's more, I don't think we should. Not entirely anyway. We already live in a political climate where it takes forever for a decision to be reached. Imagine how much slower this will be if the general public knows everything the state does. We'd be so busy complaining about the actions we didn't like that the state took out of necessity that we'd get nothing done.

We don't need to know everything, because a lot of the information would be useless to and it could endanger others. Yes, this also goes for information regarding out safety.

However, that doesn't mean I feel we shouldn't be told anything. Give us a clear picture of the what and why. What are they looking for, why are they looking for it and what danger is involved if they don't?

Very difficult. I think the right for privacy of one person should be rated very highly but I also think that the right for security should be rated even higher. The problem is to find the right balance between violating one´s privacy and protecting him/her without abusing it for other reasons than for this person´s security. So I agree that the state should be given an opportunity to protect its citizens, as long as the processes are checked by neutral institutions and it is happening transparently so the citizens know what the state is doing.

I agree with the given statement, because I believe the government has very little interest in using acquired intelligence to harrass law-abiding citizens. In the end, a man's right to privacy is, in my opinion, subordinate to the guaranteed safety of a population at large. Naturally, certain limits should be put in place, sensitive information should for one never be shared with third parties for commercial purposes nor should citizens be kept in the dark regarding the acts of its government. It's important to remember that the government is servile to its citizens, not the other way around. Overall, I believe that so long as intelligence gathering is used for the betterment of the people it is desirable, so long as the full extents and limits of these acts are actively communicated to the population at large.

If they only use your details to create a safer society i dont see a problem.

Agreed. I mean, I do believe the authorities want to keep everybody safe, which entitles them to collect your information. It doesn't mean that these people who can view your data will use it against you if you have a clean record. Maybe one day it can come in handy even to you, one can never know.

I think that as long as the right people are handling this information about citizens there shouldn't be much concern. I mean, you can't really help it now, can you? Unless you deactivate all your accounts and choose to live in the mountains, alone, no internet, no phone, no nothing. Just you and the drawings in the cave.

However... I never really heard of a case where someone caught terrorists because they've seen it in their records. Maybe I'm just not informed, but... I still haven't heard of it that often.

I trust on a democratically chosen government, that has the aim to protect the nation regardless of privacy issues. As long as the information is not abused for other causes.

I agree to a certain extent. Of course the information really can be used for your benefit in terms of safety and such, but at the same time, there are too many possible distaster scenarios. Collecting and analyzing meta-data from your phone for example already gives such an accurate and detailed representation of you as a person. In Holland this is probably not very likely, but in other (corrupted) countries information could be sold to evil minds. More plausible for Holland is that information about your finances gets out, which means that people with a debt could be refused when purchasing large goods (already happening). But, as I like to be protected by the government (that I'd like to trust) I vote for information acquisition by the government.

Depending on what information they gather i think it would be okay to track information to guarantee safety. If they would check for keywords and elements that raises suspicion i would agree with your statement. But there is also difference in personal information like social information exchange and business. I do think there should be some limitations.

The safety argument is stronger in my opinion. The optimist in me says that the government should technically be a non-profit organization, therefore the actions they undertake are not meant for their own benefit, but for the benefit of the citizens. I have to state a critical note that the way information is gathered is important to me, openness towards citizens is as important.

I agree, the information obtained by the government can be used to create safety and fight e.g. terrorism. Bcking up the other arguments that if you have nothing to hide it doesn't matter that your information is monitored since the informtion will be useless to them.

I agree that the intention is to protect citizens by collecting information. However there is also information collected of many innocent people. To acquire information that can be harm full all information needs to be investigated therefore I understand innocent people's information also has to be collected. I get the privacy point too though.

Giving up part of your freedom and privacy is inherent to a democratic system. We elect people to make decisions for us, to serve and protect. In order for them to do their jobs properly they have to hold a a certain amount of freedom when it comes to these areas. We could also go back to a nature-state in which people get to play by their own rules but I reckon we all agree that having a law to obaide makes everyone feel a lot safer. Of course those in power should always be restrained of abusing that power, that goes without saying.