You’re arguing two opposite things at once. First it’s “why would they care about you,” which assumes surveillance only happens if you’re personally important. Then it’s “they already spy on everyone,” which admits it’s mass, automated, and impersonal. Those can’t both be true. Modern surveillance doesn’t need interest, it runs on bulk data, pattern matching, and future reuse.
And “we can use it on them” is just pure fantasy. Regular citizens don’t control the databases, the models, the warrants, or enforcement. The state does. That imbalance is the whole point.
Once this infrastructure exists, it doesn’t belong to whoever you politically agree with today, it belongs to whoever holds power tomorrow.
That’s why cheering it on because it’s aimed at someone else right now is how you end up on the wrong side of it later.
This is the same mistake people make when they cheer the obliteration of states’ rights because federal power helps us this one time, or when they celebrate nuking the filibuster because it produces one short-term win, even though filibusters have historically protected conservatives more often than liberals.
You’re not changing who holds power, you’re changing how much power exists for the ones that hold it.
And once that power exists, it doesn’t belong to “our side.” It belongs to whoever controls the system next. That’s how people end up absolutely shocked and outraged when the tools they applauded get turned back on them.
Very well put. I've never liked the argument of "Ive got nothing to hide" as a counter to mass government surveillance, and its tricky to articulate why so concisely
You’re arguing two opposite things at once. First it’s “why would they care about you,” which assumes surveillance only happens if you’re personally important. Then it’s “they already spy on everyone,” which admits it’s mass, automated, and impersonal. Those can’t both be true. Modern surveillance doesn’t need interest, it runs on bulk data, pattern matching, and future reuse.
And “we can use it on them” is just pure fantasy. Regular citizens don’t control the databases, the models, the warrants, or enforcement. The state does. That imbalance is the whole point.
Once this infrastructure exists, it doesn’t belong to whoever you politically agree with today, it belongs to whoever holds power tomorrow.
That’s why cheering it on because it’s aimed at someone else right now is how you end up on the wrong side of it later.
This is the same mistake people make when they cheer the obliteration of states’ rights because federal power helps us this one time, or when they celebrate nuking the filibuster because it produces one short-term win, even though filibusters have historically protected conservatives more often than liberals.
You’re not changing who holds power, you’re changing how much power exists for the ones that hold it.
And once that power exists, it doesn’t belong to “our side.” It belongs to whoever controls the system next. That’s how people end up absolutely shocked and outraged when the tools they applauded get turned back on them.
Very well put. I've never liked the argument of "Ive got nothing to hide" as a counter to mass government surveillance, and its tricky to articulate why so concisely