[throwaway1004]

Distinction without difference: one would have to actually explain how surveillance is applied and leveraged differently across jurisdictions, allowing us to sub-divide into "good surveillance" and "bad surveillance", two different things.

Otherwise, we're talking about the inherit good-or-bad nature of surveillance as a whole and, thus, using the character of those applying it is irrelevant and contradictory.

The fact that many contradictory ideas are widely held or, at least, broadcast from the tallest proverbial hills, doesn't change the fact that they are contradictory. One thing all living generations seem to agree on is that politicians talk out of both sides of their mouth.

[sorcerer-mar]

> one would have to actually explain how surveillance is applied and leveraged differently across jurisdictions, allowing us to sub-divide into "good surveillance" and "bad surveillance", two different things.

You mean like... having laws written down by elected leaders and then having judges who are accountable to the electorate to evaluate specific instances...?

[throwaway1004]

I mean examples in-practice of such a system being used for anything other than mass surveillance of citizens which flouts their constitutional and human rights.

>having laws written down by elected leaders

The EU commission is not elected by public vote.

>judges who are accountable to the electorate

Judges are not elected by public vote.

edit: neither are the think tanks, NGOs, and array of well-paid experts who tend to both guide legislation and/or justify it to the public. This discussion can go in circles indefinitely as long as you continue to ignore reality and defer back to abstract principles and the _stated_ values & goals of the regime.