Earlier quoted context omitted.
So far, I don't believe we have much, if any, concrete evidence that pervasive surveillance makes anyone safer. What little evidence exists is self-serving and sounds more like advertising then anything else. These surveillance organizations cost large amounts of money and produce nothing but large backlogs of data that no one has time to analyze. In my opinion, that only makes it more likely that this data will be m…
You'll never seen concrete evidence. Nor is it in anyone's interests to offer it. You have two choices, one at each extreme. You can assume: - Everyone working for "agencies" do so with no regard for their stated goal and are simply interested in their own personal gain. - They're genuinely intending to prevent incidents of "crime" and are relatively disinterested in the maintenance of your privacy. I find the latter…
To be honest, the only way I might even consider that this kind of surveillance is helping would be to see some concrete examples of them literally saving lives.
I do not believe that those performing the surveillance do nothing, on the contrary, I believe they may be responsible for any number of harms (leaking private information, having that information stolen, becoming a party to blackmail, etc.) But I certainly do not believe that they are making any of us safer.