The "nothing to hide -> nothing to fear" sophistry is about shifting the basis of judgement from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent," replacing reason with superstition. It's McCarthyism; it's an inquisition. An individual has no rights over the hysterical "consensus" of the mob.
Unfortunately, there is no piece of evidence that can exonerate a person in such a context; one cannot "establish innocence," the best one can hope for is to plead tirelessley in an endless popularity contest.
The right to privacy is nothing less than the right to keep an individual mind... To own a body. If you value your own life, the right to privacy - to be left alone - is your beginning and your end, if not kept.
> An individual has no rights over the hysterical "consensus" of the mob.
Those things are not new and unrelated to surveillance, surveillance only amplify those problems. The issue is, companies/government should not be allowed to take decisions or discriminate, based or not on information, without a decision from a judge.
The rest was about shortcuts being taken, because the government was able to take those shortcuts, because:
1. people are not aware of the technologies enabling surveillance, and how to efficiently protect themselves. Those technologies are new.
2. Current internet technologies being surveillance oriented rather than privacy oriented. This need to change and will obviously change one day or the other. At least the market will expand with the news.
Unfortunately, there is no piece of evidence that can exonerate a person in such a context; one cannot "establish innocence," the best one can hope for is to plead tirelessley in an endless popularity contest.
The right to privacy is nothing less than the right to keep an individual mind... To own a body. If you value your own life, the right to privacy - to be left alone - is your beginning and your end, if not kept.
(Edited an error/reversal.)