[digi_owl]

Why limit it to an arrest?

Consider if you get into politics in some way?

Maybe you get a evening visitor telling you to either drop your ambitions, vote a certain way once in office, or in some other way dictate terms for not releasing something to the press.

Something that while not directly criminal, will be negative enough socially to make a mess of your life.

[PJDK]

This would make things very different.

However I've not seen any suggestion that this is happening, nor is dragnet surveillance in any way a pre-requisite for this sort of thing.

It isn't the lack of means that stops democracies becoming dictatorships.

[cryoshon]

Check out JTRIG. The stated purpose is to degrade and disrupt all kinds of lawful and nonviolent organizations.

As far as democracy vs dictatorship goes, consider that there is a third (and probably many other) alternatives: inverted democracy: all the totalitarianism of a dictatorship paired with passive "participation" to rubber stamp the majority of the regime, which is not subject to any form of democratic oversight. I think we're headed there rapidly, if not already there.

Remember the study that showed that public opinion is less important than moneyed interests? That's part of it, too.

[mattgibson]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

[AlisdairO]

Dragnet surveillance is not a prerequisite, but it makes it wildly more effective. Without it, when someone becomes an issue you have to dig into their past and try to find that which they haven't covered well in the intervening time. This is costly and can be circumvented given determination. Dragnet surveillance gives you a complete history of everyone at your fingertips. It makes oppression wildly cheaper and easier.

[justincormack]

This has definitely happened in the past, before dragnet surveillance. The fact that many uk politicians have found they have gchq files suggests it continues in some form.

[rhino369]

The NSA is nonpartisan and is subject to overview by both parties.

Google on the other hand? They spend millions upon millions of dollars trying to influence policy in Washington.

Who do you think is actually more likely to use blackmail here?

[djrogers]

>The NSA is nonpartisan and is subject to overview by both parties.

The same NSA that lied to it's oversight committees about it's actions? Or do you live under a different NSA than the rest of us?

[cryoshon]

The NSA lied to the congressional oversight committee repeatedly and reliably. After each lie, there was another leak which showed them to be liars.

They tried to hide by redefining the meaning of all sorts of simple terms ("collection" comes to mind) and narrow political answers like "not under this program".

There hasn't been any actual overview by either party... the actions of the NSA are aggressively hidden from them, and they prosecute whistleblowers.

[daemin]

From what I recall it has only been in the last several years when Google has actually started doing any lobbying.

Also when it comes to lobbying involving a lot of money and for draconian measures you should take a look at Hollywood and the entertainment industry. They've been using lobbyists for decades to pursue even more draconian agendas.

[mindcrime]

The NSA is nonpartisan and is subject to overview by both parties.

Non-partisan my ass. The NSA is it's own party. And from what we've seen over the past 3 years or so, they are - effectively - under NO oversight whatsoever. They lie to Congress with impunity, get rubber-stamp "warrants" from the FISA courts, and then do whatever the hell they want anyway.

[digi_owl]

"rogue elements".

[rhino369]

Applies just as much to Google.