I am just beside myself at such an idea that people looking to feed the prison machine cannot as easily find excuses to turn normal citizens into prison feed.
Just super sad guys.
What felonies are those normal citizens being convicted of that's landed them in prison?
I get the basic 'not wanting everyone's comms to be monitored' part. I think there's an important conversation to be had because indeed, that can't be the answer.
But it sounds like you're saying most people who are convicted of felonies based on a jury unanimously being convinced by the electronic evidence against them... those people are unjustly in prison?
Certain people are arrested and detained far often than others, because of who they are and not what they did.
Many positions in the justice system prioritize conviction rate above all else.
There are many problematic relationships between legislators, law enforcement and the for-profit prison systems.
Our position in this list should make anyone afraid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarcera...
If LE decides you should be "taken off the streets", regardless of if you did the crime you are accused of, you are likely going to prison for something unless you are wealthy. If you are wealthy, they may not bother. All very interesting.
There is plenty of distrust in LE and the legal system on the right. There is also plenty of people who believe it all is OK because "those people" are ending up in prison. You will never reach the people who do not care until it happens to someone they know, or someone like them.
Like, yes, the system works at the level you're assessing it. The problem is that it's based on a mountain of flawed premises and so we've ultimately created a literal torment nexus with a smiley face taped on top of it and everyone gets to wash their hands of it and go home: justice served.
The danger of constant surveillance is that a lot more of these "being a dick" incidents will be prosecuted when politically convenient (because equal, fair prosecution of all incidents would not happen as that would quickly cause the law to be changed, preventing its future use selective enforcement).
It shouldn't be so, but it is. It's human nature; the powerful use that power to defend their interests, unless prevented from doing so. The people without power or favor get watered down justice, if at all. The system isn't architected around this, but it's not architected to prevent it either.
Everyone is legally entitled to this protection.
And you consider this to be definitionally true; or do you have specific evidence of Greg Lairmore doing something that merits comparison to that regime?
Or do you actually believe that "people who entered a country without authorization and remained there long term with the intent of defying all local immigration law, should be extradited, by force if necessary" is comparable to killing a significant fraction of an entire ethnic demographic, worldwide, while simultaneously waging expansionist land wars?
Why would the "best and brightest" work for governments that pay a fraction of market price?