Maybe it's the same gut feeling I have. It's not the targeted survielence as such, but the consequences of institutionalize the process by which you select who

Maybe it's the same gut feeling I have. It's not the targeted survielence as such, but the consequences of institutionalize the process by which you select who should be monitored. It'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. I see two scary implementations of such a process 1. Machine Learning. Some algorithm monitoring as much data as possible ("it's not survielence no human is watching...") will select people to suspect. Lots of hard to diagnose false positives will get their life's destroyed. 2. Some arbitration process where people decide who to suspect. Even more false positives, and frankly miss use of power for political reasons. In both scenarios people will also start to become very anxious about having dissenting opinions, or non standard interests in fear of getting "flagged" by one of the above mechanisms. In the end the system won'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.