>> "it won't hide the fact that this surveillance infrastructure can cause much much more harm then it prevents."
"can cause much much more harm."
Cars kill way more people than guns per year. Where do you draw the line on something as subjective as this? It has the capability to cause harm but has it to the degree you're talking about? Its debatable.
Also, taking a serial killer who murdered 8 women and dismembered several of them off the streets to me outweighs quite a bit of harm. But that's just me.
Serial killers are rare and limited in how many people they can realistically kill. We already have governments in the world who use increasing surveillance technology to crack down on public dissent and persecute minorities. Or pursue their war aims in other countries.
There is absolutely nothing subjective about a surveillance state.
There is historical and current evidence for the danger of those tools. Continuous danger for the whole population of an affected state. Some countries has learned from that, like Germany from the Stasi. They have some educative materials on that topic. You should google it up.
> Also, taking a serial killer who murdered 8 women and dismembered several of them off the streets to me outweighs quite a bit of harm. But that's just me.
Unfortunately it is not just you. Many people are willing to give up their privacy for something that has been suggested to them as "security", based upon fear mongering and abstract dangers to them. Fear is a very powerful tool.
"can cause much much more harm."
Cars kill way more people than guns per year. Where do you draw the line on something as subjective as this? It has the capability to cause harm but has it to the degree you're talking about? Its debatable.
Also, taking a serial killer who murdered 8 women and dismembered several of them off the streets to me outweighs quite a bit of harm. But that's just me.