I don't think the US' overreaction to terrorism and online security threats in 2001 was an attempt to spy on citizens in general. Legal grey areas made that possible, and it is the 'obvious' thing to do when you're setting up a digital security infrastructure.
The first duty of a government is to preserve the existence of the state (incl. society, etc.) -- when faced with apparent existential threats, they often severely overreact.
Very few people's intentions here are to 'monitor' every word of every citizen -- this is really a strange, i think quite naive, misreading of the situation. That might be the net consequence, to some degree, but basically no one involved intends it.
And if you go around thinking this, and accusing people of it, I don't think you're going to be very effective.
Rather each person involved is just laser focused on preventing existential threats to the state. Secret police, and so on, even arent a real attempt to monitor citizens -- theyre just to prevent a rebellion, ie., an existential threat.
Large scale online crime is a threat to the state -- mass organised crime, new digital mafias etc. present a rival to the state's monopoly on violence, and it has a duty to prevent this from happening. Almost 'at all costs'.
If it were ever to be that online life became sufficiently unmonitorable that mass organisation of criminal networks were made possible, we'd really not be talking about 'privacy' at all -- see, for example, developing nations where this is status quo.
I suspect the reality is that we're rich enough to support a basically effecitve police force, and most importantly, not to have large pools of desperate young people with no jobs. This is really what enables us to make these demands for rights.
The logic of state action is basically well-motivated, even if it has to be prevented for the high negative concequences it may have.
The first duty of a government is to preserve the existence of the state (incl. society, etc.) -- when faced with apparent existential threats, they often severely overreact.
Very few people's intentions here are to 'monitor' every word of every citizen -- this is really a strange, i think quite naive, misreading of the situation. That might be the net consequence, to some degree, but basically no one involved intends it.
And if you go around thinking this, and accusing people of it, I don't think you're going to be very effective.
Rather each person involved is just laser focused on preventing existential threats to the state. Secret police, and so on, even arent a real attempt to monitor citizens -- theyre just to prevent a rebellion, ie., an existential threat.
Large scale online crime is a threat to the state -- mass organised crime, new digital mafias etc. present a rival to the state's monopoly on violence, and it has a duty to prevent this from happening. Almost 'at all costs'.
If it were ever to be that online life became sufficiently unmonitorable that mass organisation of criminal networks were made possible, we'd really not be talking about 'privacy' at all -- see, for example, developing nations where this is status quo.
I suspect the reality is that we're rich enough to support a basically effecitve police force, and most importantly, not to have large pools of desperate young people with no jobs. This is really what enables us to make these demands for rights.
The logic of state action is basically well-motivated, even if it has to be prevented for the high negative concequences it may have.