[timschmidt]

I think most people, if pressed, would share your evaluation. However, even though surveillance is always marketed and sold as a tool for law enforcement, I think the people proposing such bills are aware that it's primary use is for political control, power, and espionage.

Safety is the bait in the bait and switch. So the measure is not whether or not surveillance actually works for making people safer. But whether or not it actually works as bait.

[boltzmann-brain]

While it's easy to start believing this is the only motive, the truth of the matter is that a lot of stupid people do crime. So even if you only catch the stupid criminals, you still catch a bunch of criminals.

And I mean _stupid_. You wouldn't believe how intensely stupid some of those people are, but read some court records and you will come away deeply surprised we are making it as a species.

But yes, there is no doubt that what you mention is a major motivator for at least some of the people pushing for it.

P.S. I'm not saying "stupid => does crime", please don't read that into what I said above - I'm just saying that `#("stupid and also does crime")` is a large number.

[timschmidt]

> While it's easy to start believing this is the only motive

No one said that. Files leaked by Snowden describe NSA's activities as durable, even against legal attack, thanks to layers upon layers of digital, procedural, legal, and other forms of defense in depth. Among them, plausible deniability and dual use technologies. You have pointed toward both. So their tactics worked on you.

> But yes, there is no doubt that what you mention is a major motivator for at least some of the people pushing for it.

Don't forget that ubiquitous surveillance is exactly the tool most useful for blackmailing or discrediting opponents as well.

[boltzmann-brain]

> No one said that

that is not true. User lordnacho clearly expressed he thinks Chat Control will be ineffective, and from that one can easily take that ineffective initiatives should not be supported except in cases of wanting to abuse the infrastructure. It's a trope common enough that it comes implied and does not have to be spelled out.

[timschmidt]

> User lordnacho clearly expressed he thinks Chat Control will be ineffective

Feel free to respond to lordnacho directly. I don't accept communication for them. Nor can I speak for them. The only way to address the issue you have with what you feel they've implied is to talk to them about it.

> and from that one can easily take that ineffective initiatives should not be supported except in cases of wanting to abuse the infrastructure.

Your assumption.

I find the fact that mass surveillance is largely ineffective at improving safety to be incidental and ironic. It is highly effective at removing safety and liberty. That's the salient point.

Much like torture, mass surveillance corrupts those who practice it, which has led principled people to oppose it on grounds including human rights and an awareness of atrocities committed with the aid of surveillance in the past. As Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Do you deserve liberty and safety?

> It's a trope common enough that it comes implied and does not have to be spelled out.

You'd do well to respond to what's been said, and not to what you think has been implied. Responding to perceived implication didn't serve you here.

https://www.etsy.com/market/don%27t_hear_what_i_didn%27t_say...

[1oooqooq]

you don't need surveillance. there's one stupid fellon publishing in the open about persecuting political opposition and nothing happened. what reading their private communication gain?