Mass Surveillance by the State

I don't support it, but with the rise of an ever expanding internet, and the fact that we are becoming more and more intertwined with it makes mass surveillance inevitable regardless of who is or isn't in charge.

I'll play devil's advocate.

What about protecting the people from potential threats?

Who watches the watchmen?

Threats aren't good at protecting from threats.

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

How do you stop of the watchmen from watching you?

Hm. Regulation of the regulators and/or the overseers (the state) is hard. There is literally no reasonable way to regulate how they operate.

Anarchism is the answer

...

We were perfectly fine before the governments went all voyuristic. It's not like turrrrrrsts have become any more dangerous since then.

But that's not true

Stop it REEEEEEE

they already are

this will eventually be the future for better or for worse but weve still got a few decades of "privacy"

The only reason a threat is ever enacted is if the threat can be executed without significant retaliation

How do you mean?

How much retaliation do you see against the state daily?

This isn't the first thing that they've done that crosses a line, states have been doing fucked up shit forever now and will continue to unless smashed.

warrants

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a temporary safety deserve neither.

Fuck off

The cameras, the TMP chips, the facial recognition software, social media, and all that shit are relatively recent. Even in the most totalitarian societies prior there was some expectation of privacy. Now, I post here fully cognizant of the fact that some fucking spook could very well search what I write for evidence of subversive behavior.

wow what a convincing argument, tell me more.

Mass surveillance by the state is inconsequential compared to that conducted by the celestials in our solar system. Why aren't our governments preparing for interstellar war instead?

As convincing as your recycled, empty, irrelevant quote

It will always be present, regardless of government or market.
It should be illegal though, and prosecuted as treason / crimes against the people of {$governing body$}

It's bad, mmmkay.

There isn't much in the way of credible evidence to suggest that mass surveillance programs have actually increased the security of the public they survey by any statistically significant amount.

What we HAVE seen it used for primarily is targeting detractors/opponents of the state and for selling data to corporations. Usually in the former case, the information is leaked to defame the "offending individual," or private information is held over those peoples heads to keep them compliant (much in the same way you see super-subjective nitpicky laws make their ways into the books: it gives probable cause to go after just about anyone the state wants out of the way because it is assumed everyone is in some way "breaking" those laws). Other than that, it's mostly just selling data to advertisers for under-the-table profiteering.

It depends entirely on the nature of the state. Current human governments are horrible, awful things so I don't think they should have more power. An ideal post-singularity government might actually be sufficiently intelligent and ethical to use such technology well, in which case it would be a good thing.

...