The fear of losing privacy to the government is based on the fear that this increased surveillance will be used by the government to smother dissent. This is a valid fear, but has the government yet used surveillance to smother dissent? If you can find a solid example of this, I'd like to see one (and for all I know, there could be many, I'm genuinely interested).

Until the government has been caught using surveillance to stifle dissent, it seems like increased surveillance only serves to reduce crime. Of course, there are illegal things that, in my opinion, should be legal, but this is a reason to petition the government for change, not break the law... perhaps a reduced ability to break pointless laws would galvanize the population into large-scale activism?

Fear of government surveillance is entirely fear of smothered dissent. We must make sure our fears of the latter are logically sound before we fear the former.

EDIT: Because I love arguing with myself, I'll point out that it's possible some wrongly illegal activities may be embarrassing for some individuals, and they would be hesitant to openly campaign for them. It still feels weird to argue for privacy on the grounds that people have a right to get away with certain things, hmm...

EDIT 2: 15 minutes and already COINTELPRO negated the argument. Good counter, thanks.

EDIT 3: Really appreciate that I seem to have gotten at least one upvote. I get really dismayed when politely-expressed unpopular opinions are downvoted, because I feel the best way to move the dialogue forward is to engage with opposing views, not hide them (even if your level of engagement is comprehensive refutation, that's still useful).

The very reason why these things should never be allowed, is because the absolute protection of freedom of speech is ultimately the last safeguard against tyranny (before you get to violence anyway).

Why let the guy into my house with a gun and roll the dice on whether he intends to at some point do me harm? That's crazy. We've seen enough really malevolent politicians assume power all over the world and domestically, to know better than to take such chances. History is littered with endless examples, it's at best naive to think America can't suffer the same types of fate.

This is how revolutions are started. There's no "game over." A population always has the option to rise up against their brutal regime. Especially in a place like the United States, where individual freedoms are highly prized and there is a rather large contingent of heavily armed and often angry population.

I fear that if there is a violent revolution in a society as socioeconomically and ethnically diverse as the United States it would result in a civil war. I have no idea how that would play out in a country as developed as the United States but I don't think it would be pretty.

I wonder if this fits your bill:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

And, from the little I know, the actual stifling part is [allegedly?] evident in malcom X and fred hampton cases, as well as others I might be missing.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html

Disclaimer: I don't actually mind as much as I should. I somewhat OK with a cyberpunk dystopia because the closer to Ghost in the Shell we get, the cooler.

Just because the U.S government has not yet used surveillance to stifle dissent, doesn't mean they will never do it.

Also, if in the meantime civil liberties such as privacy are sacrificed, when the time comes that they DO use surveillance to stifle dissent, it may be much too late to turn the tide, as dissent would then be required to stop their stifling of dissent.

It's also because it seemed as if Obama understood that there should be a delicate line between sacrificing liberty for security.

He also talks about people not wanting a 'big gov't...but a smarter gov't'.

But it is becoming increasingly clear that he was just talking smooth - but doing quite the opposite.

Please note, I am not an Obama hater. I supported him twice - I even have a Shepherd Fairy 'Change' poster.

But this is just disgusting man.

It's like someone that runs a campaign talking about how much they love guns, and how much they are going to protect gun ownership - then when they win, they talk a good talk, but then we find out that the government has been secretly buying up all the guns they can (to dry up supply) and closing down all the gun shops.

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

This seems a rather inappropriate aphorism, since most people here would very much like to deny the NSA access to information about their phone usage. This is an argument against censorship rather than one in support of privacy.

I don't think you've really thought this argument through. I don't think the government is so much interested in vastly expanding its powers of information gathering (although as I've noted elsewhere, the government has had unlimited access to your phone records, by order of the Supreme court, since 1979), as it is in maximizing its predictive abilities within its existing legal limits - which is also considered by many to be part of its job. It's not so much you vs. the government as you vs. a large number of your fellow citizens that simply don't share your beliefs about privacy, and who choose to elect law-and-order types more often than civil-liberties types.

Let's not forget that they've been attempting to keep the existence of this program a secret.

>This seems a rather inappropriate aphorism, since most people here would very much like to deny the NSA access to information about their phone usage.

Aren't the people supposed to be the masters of the government?

>It's not so much you vs. the government as you vs. a large number of your fellow citizens that simply don't share your beliefs about privacy, and who choose to elect law-and-order types more often than civil-liberties types.

So our job is to convince those people of their error by espousing evidence in support of our view. Malicious governments kill drastically more innocent people than malicious individuals or small groups; excessive government power is more dangerous than terrorism. The amount of money we spend on anti-terrorism measures is drastically out of proportion to the actual threat and those resources could be better spent on more serious issues, terrorism hype is financially supported in enormous amounts by defense contractors and other parties with a significant pecuniary interest in continued government waste, etc.

Of 400 employees.

If PRISM only really costs $20M/year (per the slide deck), it has to be the greatest bang-for-buck IT project in Federal history. I'd let it go if we can get rid of all those multi-billion satellite projects and 3/4ths of the staff.

Damage to perceived 'rights' is OK, as long as it is done efficiently.

They are getting a discount in this case however, as companies are doing a lot of the work for them.

What do you mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

I have no idea how you interpreted it that way. The quote is in reference to the government. It's from a video game, which came out in 1999.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY57ErBkFFE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

It's like you think comments are some sort of game where you can win or lose. I think I'll just let readers read my comments and opt out of this silly game you want to play.

A similar view is held here (in the Netherlands), where interesting new methods are created to monitor speeding. The thing is, it's not viewed - or even promoted as - something that increases safety and reduces lethal accidents on the roads, but instead as a way for the government to make money.

Similarly, the way this is portrayed and kept secret by the government and the security agencies is not to reduce and prevent terrorist attacks, but to infringe upon the privacy of people using US-based online services. If the NSA and similar organizations were to be more open about what terrorist attacks they prevented, they would create more goodwill and would gain support from the people.

Yet, branding terrorists and openly causing fear of terrorists and their attacks has two side-effects; one, it will make terrorists smarter and more secretive, and two, it happens in all the Orwellian dystopias, instilling fear of 'terrorists' and foreign nations in the populace as a means of control.

So, the people would dream themselves masters of the government agency NSA. Wasn't that what government was supposed to do? Serve the people?

Simple fact is that speeding is not that much of a problem. Certainly people do it and it's dangerous, but most people obey speed limits within acceptable parameters and drive fairly safely. Present levels of speed enforcement are doing their job and greater levels would have a point of diminishing returns.