zlacker

Yes because you assume the people who are collecting your data are ethical, secure and will always share your opinions and beliefs.

Say your bank account information was stolen and someone used it to blackmail you because as you said it would have, "implications in some social aspects".

Say the country you live in converted to a religion you are not part of or want to be any part of. Imagine if they had a record of your beliefs and used it as a handy tool in mass genocide.

Say someone working for the government or a start up was jealous of something you had, and used their access to take your information in order to discredit you.

Say you medical information was sold by a fitness start up that went bust and sold to insurance companies to bump your premium.

>>robmcm+(OP)
If we assume, that — by default — people are unethical, governments are corrupt and most people in power are criminal, then you're f*cked anyway. With or without mass surveillance.

>>elrode+Ea
We don't assume anything by default, we just make an empirical observation of how people behave, and then act accordingly. The empirical observation is that there are people who are unethical, corrupt, what have you. And also, the empirical observation is that there exist certain group dynamics that make certain societal developments very hard to reverse. That is why it seems like a very good idea to avoid putting too much power into a single person's hands (in case it turns out to be one of the bad apples, or in case the power is delegated to a role rather than a specific person, in case one of the bad apples ever gets into that role), and to try and avoid the kinds of developments that tend to end badly.

Nobody says that _all_ people are unethical, or _all_ governments are corrupt, or that _all_ people in power are criminal. But rather, that being part of a government or having power does not prevent people from being unethical or corrupt. Bad people are generally a minority, but they do exist. That is one reason why we have government and police and military in the first place. But there is nothing that necessarily prevents bad people from becoming part of government, police, and military. That is why it is important to limit the power of those institutions. To limit the damage that bad people inside them can do. And also to limit the appeal to bad people wanting to become part of them. That's essentially the whole point of democracy and the separation of powers, BTW. It's a security mechanism that protects you from bad people in power - not because all people in power are bad, but because occasionally bad people manage to get into powerful positions, and that tends to end badly.

>>elrode+Ea
The potential for harm is greatly increased with mass surveillance. If you can accept that, you're getting closer to seeing the problem.