Thank you. Too many people immediately think all ‘surveillance’ is equally bad which makes things easy but it just isn’t the case. There are kinds of surveillance that can be extremely beneficial and compatible with democratic principles. Surveillance that is heavily regulated with lots of oversight CAN sometimes be a good thing.

People are against most types of surveillance because eventually a bad actor will come along and misuse the technology.

It's not that they can't be used for good things - it's their potential for misuse.

> eventually a bad actor will come along and misuse the technology

Isn’t that is the entire concept behind separation of power. If we can’t trust democratic principles how can we trust any power or technology? The potential for misuse can apply to all power, big and small.

Democracy and separation of powers are not infallible.

> If we can’t trust democratic principles how can we trust any power or technology? The potential for misuse can apply to all power, big and small.

Exactly, we inherently DONT. That is why we have a constitution and bill of rights - to prevent abuse of the system.

Also I'm not buying the "all technology can be misused" argument. It's MUCH easier to be tempted into spying on a political opponent with cameras than it is to nuke them.

> That is why we have a constitution and bill of rights - to prevent abuse of the system.

Right exactly, and the powers those guard are far greater than the sorts of surveillance being discussed here.

I vehemently disagree. Surveillance at its very core can be argued to already violate the fourth amendment.

And now in this age of social media, any seemingly meaningless activity can be used against anyone - because surveillance can be cut and devoid of context.

If you want to keep setting up strawmen and argue with yourself, be my guest.

What Strawman? That is the logical conclusion from the premises you set up. If you can’t defend it, maybe it is time to rethink your position?