New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg believes that the Boston Marathon bombings have created a unique scenario — one in which traditional interpretations of the U.S. Constitution must change.
Rather than shying away from cameras and other security mechanisms that some view as infringements upon individual privacy, the politician claims that the most recent attack calls for a new paradigm.
As for those who fear government intrusion and express serious concerns about how these technologies and other policies could impede privacy, Bloomberg is sympathetic — but only to a point.
“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry, but we live in a complex world where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will,” Bloomberg said during a press conference on Monday. “And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”
He went on to note that we live in a dangerous world and that there are some who wish to take away Americans’ freedoms, the Observer’s Politicker reports. But in order to protect these sentiments, Bloomberg argued that more intensive security is necessary.
“We have to understand that in the world going forward, we’re going to have more cameras and that kind of stuff. That’s good in some sense, but it’s different from what we are used to,” he continued.
As the Observer’s Politicker notes, Bloomberg also invoked gun control while making his point about the Constitution and security. In connecting what he said is the Supreme Court’s recognition that there are some interpretations of the Second Amendment that give way to “reasonable gun laws,” the mayor said that the nation will also need to “live with reasonable levels of security.”
Bloomberg went on to argue that the Boston attack should not be used to go after specific religious groups. And he heralded the importance of striking a balance between enjoying personal freedom and ensuring security.
“What we cant do is let the protection get in the way of us enjoying our freedoms. You still want to let people practice their religion, no matter what that religion is,” he said. “And I think one of the great dangers here is going and categorising anybody from one religion as a terrorist. That’s not true…That would let the terrorists win. That’s what they want us to do.”
This story was originally published by The Blaze.