| I feel that the burden of proof should be on the state in these matters and that tapping pre-emptively is not necessary. If the state wants to hire hackers to find out what's happening on a particular computer after the user is suspected of something, that's fine.
The real issue here is money. They don't make gas stationd hire drug-sniffing dogs to search cars that fill up, why should ISPs have to pay for measures that the government admits will be even less effective than the afforementioned dogs?
@fas, what do you mean by your third point? I'm just a little confused.
Edit: IIRC InterPol already scans electronic traffic with bots for suspicious activity. Isn't that enough?
__________________
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson |