But developing nations are already there. China has a social credit system and the Russians have had convenient ways of denouncing each other for their citizens for decades.

It might be worth reading this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System#Misconcep...

As intended.

https://gizmodo.com/larry-ellisons-oracle-started-as-a-cia-p...

Looking at repeated pushes for breaking or banning encryption it is pretty clear that privacy of citizenry is no priority for anyone in power. Slow degradation is inevitable.

There is no "risk". It will happen for sure.

Well, if their dream is to turn twitter to whatsapp then we also will lose some control of our money.

> a surveillance state. Arguably, we may already be in one.

If the lawmakers openly demonize and marginalise the unprivileged (minorities, dissenters, protestors), then it is safe to assume that it is already the case, just unevenly applied, so that the majority would continue to support the State as it increasingly grows restless with the fringe even more.

It's got very little to do with any particular "marginalized group" -- We will all be marginalized under such a system. The people behind it will use anyone to advance the dystopian agenda, including "unprivileged" people. The majority of people are not on board with the agenda, but it hardly matters what they want because they aren't actually in control and most of them don't see the big picture.

You have been since the 1960s. The NSA and CIA entitled itself to intercept and read mail of United States citizens sent or received from foreign countries. The NSA built room 641A and captured traffic in the bulk with very wide filters. There is a data center in Utah which stores all of our cellular telephone call and message "metadata."

> You have been since the 1960s. The NSA and CIA entitled itself to intercept and read mail of United States citizens sent or received from foreign countries.

Every country has has this ability for much longer.

I can't speak to that. What I can say is that this activity is absolutely illegal according to the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

> What I can say is that this activity is absolutely illegal according to the Constitution and the laws of the United States

The problem with this statement is it's historically inaccurate. Cops have been pilfering through suspects' things with no reason since the dawn of our republic. (Landowners, on the other hand, could stand their ground.)

The better argument is we have advanced enough that this should be illegal.

> is it's historically inaccurate.

Not at all. It's the 4th Amendment. It's particularly clear on this point. Perhaps "historically inaccurate" is not the phrase you meant to use. You might also notice that the CIA itself believes these activities were and are illegal. See "Project HTLINGUAL."

> Cops have been pilfering through suspects' things with no reason since the dawn of our republic.

They get warrants first or they are, in fact, committing a crime. It is, admittedly, a difficult crime to prosecute, but further evidence against your phrasing is that this is in fact a crime that does get charged.

> Landowners, on the other hand, could stand their ground.

Owning land is not at all a distinction. "Persons, Houses, Papers and Effects" are. That land is not a part of this enumerated list is actually a particular point in the enforcement of this law and creates a "plainly visible" standard that is applied by courts.

> The better argument is we have advanced enough that this should be illegal.

It's illegal. Full stop. Vagaries of enforcement are not material to this point.

It wasn’t until the 1960s that the searches that violated the 4th amendment were excluded in non-federal contexts.

Mapp v Ohio is one of the most landmark cases in 4th amendment law and the ruling came down in 1961. So when someone tells you that your maximalist interpretation isn’t historically accurate, they aren’t harkening back to colonial era rules.

(To be clear for everyone else: at the federal level, the exclusionary rule dates back to the turn of the 20th century and builds on cases from the late 19th century [Boyd v US is I think one of the big ones], and, I think it's important to keep in mind, we're talking about a period of time during which the Bill of Rights itself was just beginning to be formally incorporated on the states).

This is not paranoid, this is the logical conclusion to the control grid they are actively building. We are most of the way there with near zero resistance.

Throw in some LLM capable of interpreting surveillance camera data and it’s going to be hell on earth.

china has it and is still destabilizing. Such systemd can work if its a panopticon of all on all, but they do not work if centralized and in service to a few.

this is fine for countries that have governments that look after it's citizens, like Europe where it is already relatively safe. for the US, where the wealth disparity is rapidly increasing and only an uprising is going to change anything, I'd say it's an oppressive till of the rich to micro-police the less fortunate.