[acdha]

> The government simply can't process all the data they collect.

I'm not comfortable with this conclusion for two reasons:

1. If it's actually true now, it's a high-stakes gamble that this will remain true. Say someone sets up CCTV and starts recording everything – how many years can you say “no big deal, they can't watch everyone!” before computer-vision improvements means that they can, and can retroactively mine their archives as well? A new President changes policies so you're suddenly higher up the priority list than you thought and suddenly you're trying to explain why your cell-phone position data never showed your position at a church or did show you near a protest, family planning clinic, etc. If the data isn't collected in the first place, you don't have to worry about any of that.

2. Maybe the government isn't so great at building data-mining operations — the federal procurement and hiring process are definitely huge obstacles there — but they can also outsource it to someone like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir_Technologies who might be more effective.

[jancsika]

> [...] or did show you near a protest, family planning clinic, etc.

I agree that people relying on the argument from gov't ineptitude are making a gamble-- and one that history of technological development tells us is incredibly risky.

But doesn't the fundamental danger depend on those activities or locations being viewed by society as suspicious in the first place? Also, doesn't the contingent danger of wide-surveillance thrive mainly off of the asymmetry of access to its inferences? Isn't an activist who speaks publicly about their struggle with bipolar disorder and builds a strong support group inherently safer than one who only tells a wide-net surveillance database?

[acdha]

The problem is that in the cases where you'd most want to, you never know what could be a problem until it's too late. Say in 2016 you went to a gay friend's wedding. No problem if that end up in some vast anti-terrorism archive of social media images since it's perfectly normal but … what about a decade later when President Pence of the Republic of Gilead declares that homosexuality is a crime against God and suspected sympathisers should have rights like employment curtailed?

That's an intentionally unlikely example but it's not like there aren't plenty of historical examples of this – e.g. imagine how much more dangerous HUAC[1] would have been if they'd been able to mine every picture on Facebook using facial recognition software to build a list of everyone who'd ever been in the scene with a targeted person.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities...