> When they don't need help, we won't gather their data and it remains only in our big database.
In the same sentence:
"We won't gather their data"
and
"The data that we gather remains in a database".
That angle is based on the idea that this data "may as well not exist" but it ignores the many issues with indiscriminate data collection: the data might leak, or management might change and invent undesirable "new" purposes for old data - which, within this theory, then begins to exist retroactively.
IOW: If it's a violation of civil rights for humans to process some data, then leaving that job to software is just automating civil rights violations.
It makes sense to me to fight both schemes, but they have different impact, different risk and might need different approaches.
That is evidently what they keep the data for. They want to be able to have the data to access it eventually. If they didn't want to access it eventually, they wouldn't keep it. That is why mass collections, that are stored, are wrong.
The government can collect any data it likes on everything, but any data it then looks at must be published to the world. Ie. The government gets no privacy when looking through its big database.
The simplest approach would be to livestream every screen owned by any government agency.
I mean, China's communist elites aren't putting together such an Orwellian monitoring system just to blindly hand it's keys to any civil servant for him to leverage it's power against the elite's interests.