Inversely you can also have a government that collects everything and doesn’t wield it this way.
The two issues are not actually that intertwined.
No you can't. It's only a matter of time.
I’m saying it has approximately nothing to do with the actual issues we face today.
I.e. it’s just as relevant for me to say “this is why you don’t give governments firearms! An authoritarian one will turn around and shoot its own people!”
Like yeah, sure it seems likely. Relevant to today? Would today’s conditions have been averted if we had never armed the government? No.
Is it dangerous for the government to collect everything on the internet? Yes! Is there any evidence that capability and “habit” is actually contributing to the chilling effects described in the article? Nope!
As seen in GP’s comment, tech world’s fixation on high-tech super surveillance distracts from the how authoritarian regimes actually tend to exert control over their population. Like, in reality versus in science fiction (again, not that surveillance is good or neutral on this topic, but that it is not at all necessary).
I literally quoted you and said the quoted statement was straight up wrong.
Then we’re in agreement.
The way we structure our government needs to be architected on a longer timeline than "the current crisis".
And BTW that's one hell of an edit on the prior comment and the whole schtick about rubber hoses vs technology misses the point about technology being a force multiplier which has huge implications for political will. The fact that the NSA can read everyone's emails cheaper than the Stasi can read everyone's literal mail just means the expenditure is smaller awareness is smaller and the endeavor costs less political capital. Dangerous things (like reading everyone's email) need to be expensive.
How much airtime do we want to give that topic on this here thread about current distortion of our democracy through totally distinct mechanisms?
Not sure who you're arguing against on the propriety or danger of NSA's capability, but it ain't me.