Of course it is possible to abuse such things, which is why its important to have reasonable definitions for these things.
2. You went to buy some acetone as a solvent for a project.
There is now material evidence and intent for a terrorist attack using TATP bombs.
You and your family are on a no-fly list and are being watched.
All digital platforms have to automatically turn over all your personal data to intelligence services. They will share it with every other intelligence service in the union.
During automated analysis, a CASM detector finds bath-time pictures of your child. A criminal trial for the production of child pornography is initiated.
Those in the legal field grok this. Those with less experience in the legal field typically fear the law for its seeming black-and-white attribute when it's really a lot of grey.
Any claimed benefit or justification is entirely nullified for regular people if their oversight and transparency processes are being negated.
Is very different from 'a belief'.
What you're doing is wordsmithing this into something that sounds much worse than the actual text, which is textbook misinformation spreading.
In many cases it also leads to a case being dismissed because no evidence is found.
I'm honestly pretty surprised that people think this is a new concept.
Good luck piecing back together your life at that point, after years of being unemployable and unable to find rental accomodation (and the house that you bought with your life savings is gone, the bank sold it while you were fighting for your freedom).
I think people give too much credit to governments. "Of course they'll only use for-sure for-sure objectively terrorist intent verifiable information." No, historically what they'll do is throw you on the list because you followed a hot commie girl to a meetup in college, or attended a protest, or hell bought a watch terrorists happen to use to set timers in bombs.
And pretty much anything, with a semblance of plausibility or causal inference can be used as "objective, verifiable information". They just need to define that property as a) verifiable, b)objective and c) somehow implies some bad other property or future event.
There's a reason that programming is hard, and even harder when you have to use normal non-programming-language constructs.
What a belief is based on means squat, it is how that belief came to be that is important.
No, one legitimate concern is over the amount of information gathering and sharing that's needed to establish sufficient “objective, verifiable information” and how that competes with other goods.