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.
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.