[TrueDuality]

> I feel disregarding the usefulness of surveillance is part of the problem. We should not be arguing that that nothing good comes out of surveillance. It provides your opponent an easy strawman for a hollow victory. Because frankly, surveillance is a useful tool for law enforcement.

In this regard I recommend you go look into the evidence on mass surveillance. There have been several reports done on the mass surveillance programs that have been operating since 2001 and in report after report, the mass surveillance has been found not only to be ineffective at producing any tips, it commonly just tied up law enforcement resources that could have been spent on their legitimate tips.

Here is a very well sourced article referencing several FBI internal reports, a white house appointed review group, those of non-profits, and local police departments:

* https://www.propublica.org/article/whats-the-evidence-mass-s...

[Vinnl]

Using "it doesn't work" as an argument is a losing battle. If you even manage to convince people of that, best case they'll still be in favour "just in case it does work".

The actual, real point is that they're underestimating the downsides or surveillance, and that even if it would work, it would still not be worth it. That's the only argument that can hold, and the actual reason we're against it.

[smichel17]

Moreover, the argument becomes invalid work as soon as someone finds a method that does work. Which creates an incentive for anyone with a vested interest in this spying to create such a working system.

[aww_dang]

Agreed. I would dismiss those arguments under the well established heading of: "The ends justify the means"