&gt; [P]eople will continue to pick the &quot;no Evil&#x2F;no privacy&quot; option<p>If that was an available option, it would be fine. I&#x27;d choose no evil and no privacy because I&#x27;d know that my information, and more importantly the information of public officials and company leaders; folks who wield power; wouldn&#x27;t be abused.<p>But that&#x27;s <i>not</i> an option that&#x27;s on the table, and whatever it is they intend to pick it is not what people accomplish when they endorse surveillance. Our governments do some pretty evil stuff and those are the people who end up with the power in these sorts of arrangements. What people are being given the choice between is &#x27;a dubious promise of safety; <i>an evil that doesn&#x27;t offend them personally</i>; and no privacy&#x27; - or &#x27;a perceived higher rate of evil that does offend them personally; you&#x27;re under threat, they&#x27;re coming for your kids, hate freedom etc; and privacy.&#x27;<p>You seem to be taking the no evil part of things as essentially solved. But it&#x27;s not. We do not have systems we can trust not to abuse this.