&gt; <i>2&#x2F; Also the single person does end up having more capability but also protection from them is also more possible.</i><p>I would like to believe that, but for now if it comes to biohazard events, I&#x27;m not reassured. If we had good enough mitigation strategies today, people generally wouldn&#x27;t catch communicable diseases so much as they do. And I haven&#x27;t heard of any potential research on something that could tip things in favour of defense. Again we encounter the same dynamics that make airport security theater ineffective - the assymetry between attack and defense. The defender has to handle <i>all</i> possible attack variations, while the (either human or random in nature) attacker can just focus on one strategy, a strategy that will not be known to the defender beforehand.<p>For now, the best short-term strategy is infrastructural - basically what the health services are doing today, but even more of it.<p>I totally agree with you about present surveillance situation being a total Wild West. I have no clue what to do with it, and while I don&#x27;t really mind data gathering <i>per se</i>, I&#x27;m very much against the shenanigans governments and private companies are pulling on us with said data. We desperately need to figure out a good solution.<p>I think that one obstacle on the road to that solution will be attempting to protect the idea of privacy at all costs. I think we&#x27;ll end up having to give up a big part of it, or even the whole concept entirely - in exchange for reducing the power it gives to the governments and corporations. For instance, you can&#x27;t really blackmail people with stuff everyone knows everyone does, because nobody will care.