>Or, what if something harmless becomes illegal
So this is the actual issue then ?
Instead of resorting to hiding, should instead fix the root issue: change the law.
So this is the actual issue then ?
Instead of resorting to hiding, should instead fix the root issue: change the law.
Suppose the people of Hong Kong followed your advice, and had allowed surveillance infrastructure to spread through their city, mapping out everyone's social graphs and political affiliations.
Now that a hostile government is in charge of their city, there is no reason to worry the govt. has inherited all the gathered information and knows exactly who to target - if they don't like it, they should fix the root issue and change the law.
The surveillance/transparency has to be on both side.
Government can't just do whatever they want if they also being surveilled.
No? Because it seems to me if you're the one with power, you have a lot less to fear from surveillance, than if you're without. Say there's only one political party allowed (officially or unofficially) - that means it is free to organize and act as a political party, while if you were to try and start your own, you'd be jailed.
So where does their power come from ?
Information advantage ? No, if both side has the same information
Strength in number? there are more citizen then the government people.
>Assuming many people even learn about your arrest -
Thats why I argue for citizen to surveil the government too to level the playing field.