Maybe it&#x27;s the same gut feeling I have.<p>It&#x27;s not the targeted survielence as such, but the consequences of institutionalize the process by which you select who should be monitored.<p>It&#x27;s one thing to monitor an individual you have good reasons to suspect are involved with a serious crime. Another to start monitoring people based on some vague selection criteria based on probability.<p>I see two scary implementations of such a process<p>1. Machine Learning. Some algorithm monitoring as much data as possible (&quot;it&#x27;s not survielence no human is watching...&quot;) will select people to suspect. Lots of hard to diagnose false positives will get their life&#x27;s destroyed.<p>2. Some arbitration process where people decide who to suspect. Even more false positives, and frankly miss use of power for political reasons.<p>In both scenarios people will also start to become very anxious about having dissenting opinions, or non standard interests in fear of getting &quot;flagged&quot; by one of the above mechanisms.<p>In the end the system won&#x27;t be used to create a free world but as another weapon to wield by those happen to have the most influence at any given moment.