The dynamics of such a system are rarely considered, which is why it's such an easy trap for societies to fall into, especially societies with high regard for their institutions.
It starts with the voices of reason ("Isn't there a danger this data could be abused?") being slowly pushed out, through lack of promotions or being transferred to other departments where they are a "better fit".
Then this government body starts to attract the naive zealots ("Just think of all the good we can do! How could anyone see a problem with us collecting more data?") which becomes self-reinforcing.
The final step is when the ambitious and malicious take notice ("This data must be worth a lot of money to the right people, and I could make sure my political party never loses another election") at which point the entire process is captured and corrupted from the top down.
Avoiding building these systems in the first place is good civic hygiene, and societies need to develop an instinct that if you allow data and power to accumulate in one place for too long, it will start to attract pests.
No. Variations of the slippery slope argument fail to engage with the actual concrete issues, the actual social trajectory, and anything specific and contextual. Not engaging is not engaging. It is weak and solves nothing.
The Norweigian government has specific plans for this data. Engage those plans. Concrete adversarial scenarios are in fact helpful from a policy and planning perspective.
> Concrete adversarial scenarios are in fact helpful from a policy and planning perspective.
Right, and I'm saying that an agency which is tasked with gathering all this private data about innocent citizens, without a warrant, is going to attract people who will want to abuse it, just as other mass surveillance agencies have abused their powers in the past.
How much more concrete do I need to be? Do I need to give the names of actual Norwegian threat actors who I think might want to infiltrate this agency, and specify who they would sell the data to, or which of their ex-partners they would spy on, or which opposition politician's spending habits they would leak to which paper?
It starts with the voices of reason ("Isn't there a danger this data could be abused?") being slowly pushed out, through lack of promotions or being transferred to other departments where they are a "better fit".
Then this government body starts to attract the naive zealots ("Just think of all the good we can do! How could anyone see a problem with us collecting more data?") which becomes self-reinforcing.
The final step is when the ambitious and malicious take notice ("This data must be worth a lot of money to the right people, and I could make sure my political party never loses another election") at which point the entire process is captured and corrupted from the top down.
Avoiding building these systems in the first place is good civic hygiene, and societies need to develop an instinct that if you allow data and power to accumulate in one place for too long, it will start to attract pests.