Does anyone seriously think the program is actually to stop terror? It is here to control the population in the country. Oh you want to run for president with ideas we don't like? It would be sad if someone publishes all this data we are sitting on.
For that to be true, that would mean that the existing president would have been campaigning to curb the powers of the NSA before he became president and then afterwards flip flopped, changed his mind and backed off to the point of supporting more surveillance.
No way! That actually happened! [1] my god, why aren't the American public and press even asking these questions?
However, he must have changed his mind for some other reason, because otherwise that would mean the NSA blackmailed the president of the USA. Which of course is completely unrealistic!
They threw a bunch of insider trading charges at him when he impeded efforts by the NSA to get Qwest (of which he was chairman and CEO at the time) to do warrantless bulk collection.
Or do you mean to imply that it was a fabricated hit job? Because to me it seems to be a real problem when a law enforcement official is giving himself special treatment.
> Or do you mean to imply that it was a fabricated hit job?
Suspected parallel construction. They used illegal collected records in order to find the dirt, and then dug it out using other means that were quasi-legal.
That having been said, an anti-prostitution crusader who is using prostitutes deserves exactly what he got. If he hadn't been a crusader, I would have been sympathetic.
It just like Republican congressmen. I really don't care how or with whom they're having sex, as long as they aren't crusading against what they, themselves, are doing.
Spitzer was out of control. His sin was alienating all of those around him.... Many folks in Albany were cheering his demise.
The other two leaders of the legislature have been prosecuted for corruption. His Lieutenant Governor upon succeeding Spitzer disclosed that he was a cocaine user that routinely cheated on his wife. You need to look at Spitzer through the lens of corruption that is NY politics... He was a victim of hubris, not conspiracy.
I don't think it's blackmail. The NSA is probably afraid of the executive branch, not the other way around.
More likely, it's simply the continued concentration of executive power combined with fear of political fallout in the event an attack happened in the wake of scaling back these programs.
Given that the NSA spied on Obama when he was still a wannabe-senator, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he was blackmailed [1].
Also, just watch candidate Obama debate President Obama on government surveillance [2].
I mean, short of someone providing a document detailing how the NSA intents on spying on the next presidents of the United States and manipulating them, I don't see any more clear evidence than this.
> It is here to control the population in the country.
I am not even sure about that. It is there because it is already there. By that I mean it is a giant bureaucratic investment project with billions of dollars flowing through. Many careers (oh look job creation!), business opportunities, support, training, etc tied into it.
During terrorist scares its powers expanded because there was an opportunity to expand, so expand it did. But not because some cabal of Illuminati wanted to read sexting messages of every person on earth.
So now it is sort of a cancer that feeds and grows and acquires power for itself. The same with TSA and many other such, at the time, seemingly temporary institutions and measures.
This is how I see it. NSA gonna NSA. NSA gonna maximize the amount of NSA it does. This is why we are SUPPOSED to have congressional oversight. It is quite literally the point of congressional oversight; to keep things from getting out of control. To ensure the US citizen's and the US's ideals and interests are being served in organizations who have every incentive to pursue their own self-interests. However 9/11 happened and they were able to capitalize big time on fear. Our intelligence community does way to much serving its own interests under the guise of serving US interests IMHO.
However, I believe it is ALSO dangerous to have all this information as pointed out by the OP. Again, this is why we are supposed to have congressional oversight and why transparency and secret courts are such hot issues.
>This is why we are SUPPOSED to have congressional oversight.
Gongressional oversight, in the form of some special briefings, and meetings and such, means nothing. In a real democracy what you should have is oversight by the people, in an open and transparent system. Congress itself doesn't have that oversight (what with gerrymandering et al).
If you mean "in the context on secret spying on citizens what would that entail" then the answer is that not all contexts are appropriate for a democracy. Those who are not should be altered to fit democratic procedures or be abolished.
If spying needed to happen, the procedures should be open and transparent. All the stuff Snowden brought forward, should have been released officially in advance.
But before of that, the democratic thing for such a mass offense against privacy would be a referendum: "We need to massively track you, including such and such information and sources. Yes / No".
Furthermore, nothing secret should go on that's not explicitly voted, e.g. absolutely no sharing of the data meant for national security with police departments to head-start a case against a citizen etc.
No indefinite storage of those items either. Delete them with a rolling delete every few years or so.
>I am not even sure about that. It is there because it is already there. By that I mean it is a giant bureaucratic investment project with billions of dollars flowing through. Many careers (oh look job creation!), business opportunities, support, training, etc tied into it.
"It's there because it's there" is probably true, but that doesn't preclude the "population control" part. Such a system, will: 1) fight tendencies for change that doesn't play well with it ("self preservation"). 2) Find ways to justify its existance and funding, including targeting people, labelling them as "threats", and convincing politicians and the public about its necessity.
For targets of such a system think Aaron Swartz, Snowden, Assange, activists and such (and back to the past: the red scare, the huge FBI files and government interference with people like MLK, etc).
>But not because some cabal of Illuminati wanted to read sexting messages of every person on earth.
No, but a cabal of high ranking officials and corporations wanted a multi-billion system they could profit from, and have forever wanted a populace that plays by the establishment rules. It doesn't have to involve ancient orders to be a conspiracy, all power decisions taken behind closed doors and in a non democratic way are.
I agree. Intelligence services always liked collecting data. In fact, before facebook and computers, they had whole departments maintaining big paper files on who published what opinion, what any informer said on anyone, people's CV, relationships, etc. Browsing these files efficiently was a discipline in itself. The move to electronic files was only natural and they collected more data automatically just because they could, but it is sort of in their DNA, nothing to do with terrorism.
The problem with these files is that they are only going to really bite us over a longer period of time. When intelligence services get more reckless about them (procedures becoming more lax over time is a natural decay), and when they contain sufficient data over a long period.
Imagine what Nixon would have done with this data. We don't even need to invoke dictators!
I'm sorry, but this is absurd. The article shows what extreme lengths they went to to keep the program secret; suddenly they're going to go around publishing data, perhaps masquerading as traditional hackers, but still significantly tipping their hand? That's the kind of thing that might work once or at most twice, only in the presence of a decently sized conspiracy (not that those don't crop up at times), only if no evidence leaks out fingering the government, only if no low-level employees with knowledge of the program, here 10x as contrary to American values as what actually happened[1], turn whistleblower. Once it did get out, it would presumably be a truly Watergate-level scandal, since you suggest behavior similar to Watergate.
Hanlon's Razor - just because it sucks at catching terrorists doesn't mean it wasn't motivated by a desire to Do Something.
[1] I don't think spying on the populace comports with American values, but harassing people for their political speech is a whole 'nother ballpark.
They don't have to reveal where the data came from. You got crazy(read: anti-status quo) ideas and you're getting close to being able to implement them? .... NSA leaks info to your opponent(s) and/or media(loves destructive info already)... and suddenly your opponent comes by with it. In shock you go, "How did you get this info?!!!" Opponent says "...I have my sources..." Or the news doesn't even approach you; they just blast it online/TV and wreck you, the end. Journalists don't have to tell you how they got the info at all. Anonymously by mail, whatever.
NSA's collected data is perfectly (ab)usable without revealing its source and to believe it hasn't already happened numerous times is denial. There must be all kinds of unrevealed scandals they're sitting on and it's undeniable human nature that at the government level the knowledge of these scandals hasn't been used as leverage on people. I can't even accept NSA employees haven't numerously abused their access to spy on friends & family.
> .... NSA leaks info to your opponent(s) and/or media(loves destructive info already)... and suddenly your opponent comes by with it. In shock you go, "How did you get this info?!!!" Opponent says "...I have my sources..."
I have another axiom I will dub "third-worldify". Take this story and replace United States with a "third world" country such as Turkmenistan or North Korea.
Now, if instead it was, [Zambia] does so and so, is it believable?
So therein you find your fallacy of exceptionalist presumption. If you think that, say, the Pakistani government could execute this, then I assure you the United States can.
There's no magic change in the greed of power from one land to another.
Sure, the "super-good" at hiding it == They make sure it's not right up in your face & you can't feel it in your day-to-day life; especially sure not to let the non-minorities or affluent feel it. My family and wife are from Nigeria. I've enjoyed going to the movies & the beach & to eat out at restaurants. However I've also been to some of the rougher parts and watched, from a taxi, my dad argue over bribes with 2 police(or military) men holding machine guns. In USA, as long as the corruption is mostly impacting the poor and/or minorities it's not a problem. In fact, I'd love to know the economic & demographic breakdown of responses to the perceived corruption and the questions from that website. It'd help me to know if I'm right or completely off base in my assumptions.
I've lived in quite a few places with extremely high corruption and to be honest I don't know what I prefer, probably on the one hand it feels comfortable to have the corruption hidden behind a layer of veneer, on the other to have it out in the open at least allows you to discuss the problem with others without coming across as paranoid.
Blackmail is not about publishing, its about knowing something which someone else do not want published. As soon you publish it, all your power goes away.
Of course, simple blackmail would be a poor use of such information. Much better to use it to create missinformation, know who in the targets environment that is weak, and how to subtle encourage internal disruption in the ranks. You can even identify who is likely to become the next president from early age, and then recruit those before they can become a threat to the party.
Threats never have to enter the equation. At that level people can disappear, cars malfunction, health happens.
If you're running for president, you've scratched the right backs and suppressed any distasteful political ideas you may have had. You aren't a threat because you've been vetted by the power structure already.
I do agree that the surveillance state now exists to maintain power in all spheres. Exposing yourself is handing over a large chunk of that power, which is where I disagree with your sentiment.
Just think of the value of knowing what your foreign competitors are up to, on national and economic levels.
The worst thing that all of this spying and whatnot did is that every crazy conspiracy theory written in sibling posts...
...doesn't really seem all that crazy or outlandish at all, and I suspect much of the speculation is at least partially within the bounds of exactly what happened/is happening/will continue to happen.
It's unfortunate but in a world where rationality on subjects like these (forget about ethics) is hard to find pointing out that the thing the world seems to revolve around (money) is being wasted can be used to some effect.
I agree that this is not the way the world should work but when you all you have is eggs omelette is on the menu.
Secrecy of a program undermined it's effectiveness. It seems clear from this document that they completely failed to learn what the 9/11 commission blamed the attacks on: not that we didn't have the intelligence, that the intelligence was managed and communicated poorly.
I can't imagine as an FBI agent to investigate random phone numbers and told they were relevant without any context, especially when most of them are nothing. And if nobody can use this intelligence, why collect it? It sounds like big data buzzwords gone mad.
Even worse is the secret legal memos. If judges aren't allowed access to the legal documents about the program, how can they be expected to protect our democratic institutions and freedoms? Even most of the Bush and Obama administration's counsel were kept in the dark about the legal memos.
A power grab? If so, a pretty ineffective one, it seems nobody has benefited from the stellar wind program or even has access to information from it.
It's kind of like security checks at airports, I am not aware that in the long history of terrorism, a single attack has been stopped at one of these security checks.
That doesn't really say anything about whether the checkpoints are effective or not.
If they are ineffective, I'd not expect any attacks to be stopped at the checkpoint due to its ineffectiveness.
If they are effective, I'd not expect any attacks to be stopped at the checkpoint because the attackers know about the checkpoint. If they don't know how to get past it, they will not start the attack.
We do know that before checkpoints where introduced in the early '70s there were a lot more hijackings. In 1969 there were over two dozen hijackings to Cuba, for example. Airline hijackings went way down after checkpoints were introduced and made it so you had to have a more sophisticated plan to get a gun onto a plane than simply tossing it into your carryon bag.
Then you can justify any vexation to passengers with this logic. If I am forcing all passengers to strip naked, and for 20 years I do not catch any terrorist like that, it means I am doing a good job!
Using the lack of terrorists caught at a checkpoint to justify the checkpoint would be invalid, just as using that lack to say the checkpoint is not stopping attacks is invalid.
My point is that "attacks stopped at checkpoint" is not a useful measure, because it has little if any connection to the effectiveness or lack thereof of the checkpoint.
I had the exact opposite reaction to Snowden's revelations about the NSA that everyone else did. Prior to that, I had thought it is a ridiculous infringement on people's privacy. I thought it was terrible what the NSA was doing. I advocated heavily for anyone thinking about heading in that direction to rethink their life, and work on something constructive.
Snowden revealed so much more data collection than anyone could have imagined was going on. People's thoughts as they were evolving, the NSA could watch someone and know what they were doing before they did! But compared to this level of surveillance, which was WAAAAAY beyond anything the Stasi or Gestapo ever did. And did people think that they were living under a police state? Did people have to watch what they said and wrote? No.
And you were hard-pressed to find irresponsibility there. They actively denied their capabilities, hid from the public, remained completely hidden. This is great: it's the opposite of living under a dictatorship. It's great that they hid so well. I gained enormous respect for them. In addition, I thought that that data would have the most amazing historical significance of anything humanity has ever recorded.
One of the greatest insights into the past that we have is at Pompeii, where Vesuvius erupted and covered a city in ash, freezing everything just as it was, in the middle of conversations. Blackboards were filled with crude insults to the teacher. People left graffiti everywhere. It gave us an incredible amount of information.
Can you imagine in the year 3,000, when the NSA's documents are ancient history, what kind of insight into the human condition, machinations, good guys, bad guys, plans, history, humanity can gain by seeing every single person's complete activity down to the second, down to when they were composing their thoughts?
I believe that history can be a huge lesson, and not only "those who do not learn from history are doomed to report it", but that it's better to learn from somebody else's mistakes. In the year three thousand, humanity can learn so much from a complete black-box recording of everything that has ever happened today.
Compared to this level of access - which is illegal, which they denied, which they still do not acknowledge - about the only abuses someone can name is that a general had a sexual affair (which most people would consider immoral) and they manufactured a back story for how they learned this. That's the worst thing I've ever heard about them.
Why do they have to exist at all?
Some people suck. A free society means people are free to do and think whatever they want. Some of them will choose to pursue great ideas and ideals, set up huge disruptive businesses where they generate billions of dollars in true value for society, that never existed before. The easiest way to be a millionaire is to make something great, and let people buy it.
Other people will look at a millionaire, and make an elaborate scheme to blackmail and extort them. They think that the easiest way to make money is through theft, scamming, blackmail, extortion. What should happen if Larry Ellison's wife is kidnapped? What if a virus writer encrypts your files and illegally blackmails you to decrypt them?
Everybody knows what happens under an anarchy, or a complete lack of rule of law: people spend their energies arming up personally, as opposed to building relationships, products, ideas, or being productive. People don't trust each other. Might makes right.
How much better than that is the fact that if you concoct an elaborate kidnapping or terrorist plan, the appropriate agency can get the black box to spit some facts out about this?
Since learning the extent of the information the NSA has siphoned up, and the incredible responsibility that they've treated this with, I would not have a problem if they had a a multi-petabyte database with every thought, action, keystroke, of everyone on the planet. If anything it is too bad humanity is not quite in a position to be united into a single world government that this is a part of.
I support the NSA in siphoning off all the data, treating it responsibly, hiding, cowering from oversight, denying what they are doing (even from other agencies), withholding data, and being the black box that they are. I don't mind if readers here work for them.
This is just about the opposite of what I thought about the NSA before the Snowden revelations!
Their very existence keeps people honest. When people online happen to be talking about how to do something destructive, they joke about being added to some list. But by the same token, they wouldn't even think about actually concocting such a plan.
EDIT: I want to reiterate that they should not admit any of this and vehemently deny it. That is the difference between living under a dictatorship, or living under complete freedom from surveillance and government oversight, while enjoying protection from kidnapping and ransom.
The picture you've painted isn't comforting at all. It's absolutely terrifying. You're drawing these comparisons against communication edge cases (blackmail and a descent into anarchy), rather than realizing that the vast, vast, majority of conversations are banal. Banality notwithstanding, that doesn't mean it's okay for them all to be sucked up and stored forever. Common people keep their FB and Instagram set to private for a reason: because they don't want strangers viewing their semi-public, banal information. And you want to extrapolate out FB and Instagram (small slices of life) to everyone's entire online presence, forever? That's both patronizing, to make that assumption for other people, and absurd.
Pompeii is great for archaeologists, but given the opportunity, I bet those people would have opted to leave behind a crafted and consented-to image, rather than having their laundry aired out for all to see for eternity.
I don't think the rule of law is an edge case. Blackmail happens every day.
You make a really interesting point with this:
>given the opportunity, I bet those people would have opted to leave behind a crafted and consented-to image, rather than having their laundry aired out for all to see for eternity.
But I wonder: is a well-crafted idyllic image of history worth a limited understanding of humanity as a result?
I think that in the startup world we can understand that there are often two stories: one is a marketing story; but another is the sad reality of the hustle early-on. Later once companies have succeeded, it is all right (I think) to admit to the hustle.
Another example was that surely the founders of America would not have wanted to be remembered as tyrannical slave-owners. But while we present the noble story of the enlightenment and ideals of freedom ("all men are created equal"), at an advanced level we learn that they did not practice this literally. Does it take away? We remember their achievements and progress, and the story they wanted to leave behind. Not their foibles.
Orson Welles got his acting start in theater in London, lying and saying he was a well-known actor in the United States. He was a complete rookie. Though the production manager had his doubts about the story, he gave Welles a shot.
How does the existence and knowledge of this fact take away from the story of Orson Welles, creator of Citizen Kane which is considered by many to be the greatest work of cinema in existence?
Welles is an inspiration to many. So are startup founders who have to hustle.
I think being brutally honest about humanity gets us farther than not having this information at all. Perhaps it would only concern people at the University doctoral level, but I don't think the existence itself of this information is a net loss for humanity.
I also have personal theories about good and doing the right thing, and I'd hope either that a few hundred years from now everyone agrees with me; or that I learn enough about humanity to improve my own understanding by the time I die. When I learn new facts, I update my understanding.
So thanks for your comment, but I do not find it convincing and am leaving my comment up.
I think the fact that modern historiography can present both the benevolent and the dubious sides of America's founders' histories without the use of what you are proposing is a testament to mass surveillance's needlessness. We don't have a limited understanding of humanity for the past 2000 years, we have a pretty darn good one, and an even better one for the past 500 years. Do you sincerely believe that the best way to advance humanity in the future, while respecting the well-being of people living today, is to suck every last drop of everyone's communications into a storage pool, let some unknown entity run unknown analyses on it, towards unknown ends, at unknown (direct and indirect) costs?
Ultimately, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Frankly, based on your writing, it seems like you think you would be fit to do so...
> I also have personal theories about good and doing the right thing, and I'd hope either that a few hundred years from now everyone agrees with me; or that I learn enough about humanity to improve my own understanding by the time I die.
Everyone has their personal theories about doing good, but not everyone believes that everyone else needs to be watched 24/7 by other humans in order to keep performing that good.
EDIT: I am not trying to silence your opinion or suggest that you take it down. I appreciate countervailing opinions. I do, however, have a hard time appreciating the apparent smugness and ease with which you suggest that everyone should eventually come to the same conclusions as you, because (obviously) that (mass surveillance as a historical artifact, and as a present-day crime deterrent) would benefit humanity.
Firstly, I didn't sanction it.* They have no right to do this and should vehemently deny it. Anything to the contrary is deeply illegal (by the supreme court of the land), and needs to be met with sanctions and repercussions, up to and including dismantling the NSA.
Any level of transgression would make me take affirmative steps in this direction.
* by the way I'd avoid using the verb 'sanction' ever as it means both punish/discipline ('they were sanctioned by the court') or it means approve of ('the plan was sanctioned by the court') with just a grammatical hair of difference. to be clear, here, like you I mean the latter, 'approve of'.
It is illegal whether or not they acknowledge it. Much as you may dislike it you are - in my opinion - actively approving this by writing what you did above. Either that or I completely fail to understand your position.
If as it seems Snowden sucked it all up with wget and there was no audit trail, there can be no doubt that many others also have all this data - still comforting?
The fact is that collecting all this info in the first place is diametrically opposed to security of individuals, companies, and the state. It will never be perfectly secure and digital storage and distribution means that one breach and it's all out there forever.
What that means is that the individuals who run your judiciary and police, government, media, education, corporations, financial institutions, and infrastructure are all now compromised and open to blackmail and pressure tactics. Great ammo for another trading bloc which wants to manage your slow decline, or trigger some shocks through your financial markets at just the worst possible moment, or maybe influence your next election.
The only conclusion here is that the practise of collecting and aggregating personal data can harm the national interest and should be very highly controlled, whether by state or private organisations.
We used to think asbestos was great and produce tons of the stuff. These huge aggregated datastores are much the same.
Yes, you are right. Collecting all this info in the first place is diametrically opposed to the security of individuals, companies, and the state. It is like a nuclear power plant, with a reactive fission core that has to be very well-contained. And then the 'waste' has to be put away for 500 years. It's diametrically opposed to environmental safety.
I completely agree with you that it needs to be incredibly tightly controlled. It's precisely the fact that I learned that, in fact, this was largely the case that left me impressed with them.
It was as though you have learned that there has never been a nuclear meltdown, but, unbeknownst to anyone, nuclear has been providing cheap, low-pollution energy throughout the world for decades, while being very well-run. That was leave you with a sense of both uneasiness, but perhaps respect that it has been done well.
I will say that I think that some of the people collecting all this data are like how some 'hoarders' of copyrighted, etc, files feel and behave. They kind of feel like if there is data (bits) that are out there, they should have a right to get them.
This does not ordinarily make someone want to do damage with it, and perhaps the employees of the NSA care more about siphoning up everything than using it for any harm.
Overall I would agree that it is a very dangerous thing to exist, and would require the smartest people on the planet to keep secure; as well as deny the existence of it at all.
I think there's a huge difference between them admitting to what they're doing, or doing it in secret. They should completely deeply deny everything they're doing. While retaining the capability for when someone decides to be a genuine evil person. You just can't be one these days and have any success! This is as it should be.
They should not admit to anything, which would have a chilling effect on free speech. I want to be able to live my life in complete freedom from any oversight or surveilance :)
that is the difference between the free world and a dictatorship.
Two things completely contradict this romantically naive line of reasoning: 1) that they were caught using this capability to stalk their lovers (that's just the one we know of) 2) that the systems were not protected (Snowden being able to hoover it up using wget and no audit trail).
(The fact that that these toxic datastores would be created so thoughtlessly and kept so badly makes one wonder about 'the smartest people on the planet'. Though if you've ever worked for a government contractor, you'll know that technical standards are typically among the worst on the planet.)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants
shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized.
If you don't have a billionaire's family member tied up in your basement, who you are currently using TOR, encryption, and some anonymous currency to hold for ransom, then you have the right to be secure in your effects.
You, I, and everyone else enjoys this right. Nobody gets to look at our things. Any admission by the NSA to the contrary would be a grave violation of our rights.
I disagree with you to such a level that I'm letting it anger me. With that being said, I upvoted you. This is a worthwhile comment, to see how other people might see the world.
I don't want to attack you on a case by case basis, other people have done that enough. But as a completely superficial criticism, you should know that one of the staples of anarchism is that it relies on strong communities.
> Everybody knows what happens under an anarchy, or a complete lack of rule of law: people spend their energies arming up personally, as opposed to building relationships, products, ideas, or being productive. People don't trust each other. Might makes right.
"I'll take this-guy-has-no-idea-what-anarchism-is for $1000, Alex."
Go look at any anarchist society that existed. Then look at the US today. Tell me which is more selfish and concerned with their own well being.
I'm sitting in front of my keyboard for like 10 minutes trying to find where to start from... Honestly, I cannot.
> Can you imagine in the year 3,000, when the NSA's documents are ancient history, what kind of insight into the human condition, machinations, good guys, bad guys, plans, history, humanity can gain by seeing every single person's complete activity down to the second, down to when they were composing their thoughts?
Yes, it will be very pleasant - and exciting at the same time - to be able to view - and perhaps enjoy the same - activities of a person that searches for tentacle/eel porn.
Ditto. My first thought was to rage at the rationale behind that post, but I'm glad I stepped back to let it percolate. Scares the shit out of me that presumably normal and respectable and intelligent people see the situation that way...
It's the little helpers that are the problem, not the NSA per se, all those presumably normal, respectable and intelligent people that see nothing wrong with this are the heart of the matter.
Here in nl with some regularity the 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear' bull-shit gets trotted out and it is really aggravating but at the same time it helps to have a window into the minds of those that would be happy to live in a world like that.
Me, I'd rather see whole generations of criminals walk free than to see the world lose all those things that were hard-won not all that long ago.
Every thread like this eventually converges on comparisons with the former Third Reich and we tend to shy away from that comparison because obviously the differences are legion but at the same time you have to really worry what a future political powershift could do with the data they would have at their disposal. At a guess any resistance would be dead before they even got to first base.
Except not even, because the data will never see the light of day, only hidden / stolen by bad actors. The only historical significance will be how huge of an over-reaction we had to 9/11 and the perceived threat of drugs.
> Some of them will choose to pursue great ideas and ideals, set up huge disruptive businesses where they generate billions of dollars in true value for society
I think the verdict is still out on whether or not someone's great idea + my data is good for me or not. I'm leaning with it's not.
You are proposing that the NSA invade everybody's privacy and collect all the private information. And yet you yourself refuse to disclose the name of your startup; what it does; who works there, etc. If you are going to be that cavalier about my private information, at least show us how by disclosing your private information.
