I'm okay with threats to my privacy being held up by a little red tape, tbh.

ㅤ

Of course the implication of that statement is that if you are worried about your privacy, you're probably engaged in or associated with something that would require the attention of the intelligence services (because there is no threat to people who are not.)

So that not only means that there's no reason not to maximize surveillance, but possibly one of the most important reasons to maximize surveillance is the existence of people who are worried about their privacy. Those people are probably dangerous.

edit: Typing this, I feel like I may have been possessed by Cass Sunstein. Bring on Skynet.

Somethinf that would require the attention of thr intelligence services, like, say, getting an unwanted pregnancy in America. The government can and does change its standards, and the tools that can be used against you will be used against you.

It's no threat when it's happening.

There's no evidence any of this makes us safer. It does increase the powers of intelligence agencies. They are already agile enough (what does that even mean?) and will never push back against increasing their powers. More powerful intelligence agencies are dual use: both more powerful* against real threats, but also more powerful against citizens that challenge them in any way.

*note: power may be far in excess of threats faced.