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 4 hours ago | parent [-]

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 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> 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.