[ginush]

An analyst who is tasked with investigating, say, terrorist threats, is not going to be remotely interested in the browsing habits of random people who pose no threat whatsoever.

It's just pure paranoia. Yes, we know bulk interception is being done by intelligence agencies. No, they're not watching you. They have more important things to be getting on with.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

You can get on secret watchlists by means of guilt by association, automagically.

https://legalclarity.org/what-happens-if-you-are-on-a-watchl...

https://abcnews.go.com/US/terrorist-watch-list-works/story?i...

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-be-on-fbi-watch-list-...

That also applies to just visiting absolutely harmless websites which have been deemed VERBOTEN! to visit, for whichever reason(again, in secret).

Have fun trying flying then, or being debanked. Would you like to spanked?

[Larrikin]

Your are arguing from a green account that everyone should ignore all evidence contrary to what you are saying and just calling everyone paranoid for not pretending that evidence doesn't exist. The same government that is demanding all visitors to the United States show them all posts they have made online as a condition of entry. It is not an argument worth engaging with anymore.

[ginush]

That supports my point. If there really was a mass surveillance regime as the paranoics claim, there would be no need for the border control agents to ask for social media posts to be shown on entry. They would already have this information.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

No, it does not!

Doppelt genäht hält besser! https://dict.leo.org/german-english/Doppelt%20gen%C3%A4ht%20....

Also plausible deniability and/or competition/mistrust between different actors/agencies.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

R U sure/serious?

There is the concept of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(policing) and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentiment_analysis

Combine that with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geofence_warrant and enjoy the possible hassle of being 'by-catch'.