Surveillance is a useful law enforcement tool.<p>Traditionally police would have to go to a judge and get a warrant to monitor someone. This was often rubber stamped but it at least gave a paper trail and the police had to have their ducks in a row (e.g. it would be easier to detect if a cop or spook was spying on their ex-wife&#x2F;ex-husband, since no warrant, no paper trail).<p>What I don&#x27;t understand is: Why is getting a warrant now seen as something that is optional&#x2F;avoidable? Several Western countries (UK, US, and several other european ones) have passed laws designed so that warrants can be avoided in certain cases (and none of those cases are &quot;immediate threat to life&quot;).<p>Mass surveillance is taking that to a whole different level: Now nobody needs a warrant for anyone. They&#x27;re only limited by internal rules. And we already know that spooks often utilise this to spy on their friends&#x2F;family&#x2F;love interests.<p>So, no, my opinion hasn&#x27;t changed. Police surveillance with a warrant from a judge is still ok. Targeted surveillance via spooks with a warrant is also ok. Untargeted surveillance and or no warrant remains unacceptable even after the Paris attacks.