I believe it ends, when they can't trust their own data for any logical reasoning, because the data has been so conveniently de-anonymized or encrypted as a digital blob.
I share this as the primary escape route for general surveillance too. They will always seek surveillance powers because the nature of a state is to seek power (not always for mischieve but nonetheless). We can politically prevent this or that form of surveillance but only temporarily. The only permanent solution is to make surveillance more effort than it’s worth.
The only permanent solution is to make surveillance more effort than it’s worth.
Well put. Much more succinct than my "chapter". Curious as a follow-up, how you would define harm in your original post?
reply
An uncomfortable (probably) counter to this is that beliefs about what's reasonable change. Your grandpa would probably have been outraged at the idea that people would listen to his private conversations, and yet now my greatest joy would be if I didn't have to listen to people's private fucking conversations at every moment in every public space.
What feels oppressive is very much a question of culture and that's always moving.
reply
That's a really interesting point. What we'd like to keep private does change. It doesn't seem to change dramatically very often but it's not static either.
reply