> Why would non state actors be any less scary?
Non-state actors can't easily use violence to throw me in jail.
Non-state actors can't easily use violence to throw me in jail.
The surveillance non state actors are already doing anything this administration wants.
The argument isn't that it's good these companies are doing this - it's not. The argument is that it would be even worse if the state was doing it directly. There are more avenues to stop, nullify, and avoid this when it's a private enterprise than when it's the state.
Are you insane? When if ever are the agents of the state held responsible. If anything the civil suit against the business is more likely to go somewhere.
The fact that the state may "pay out" does not mean it has any serious incentive not to shoot the person dead so long as such payouts don't become too regular.
I owe Comcast $200, according to them. I've "owed" it for years. Can you imagine if I owed any government agency the same sum for the same time. I'd be arrested and thrown in jail for non-payment and/or some sort of quasi-contempt charge if I refused.
Let me rephrase: why wouldn’t state actors be scary?
The state might have a monopoly on legal physical violence, but I think it is naive to think private interests can’t harm you just as much, with or without state connections. See my previous examples.