>In fact, a lot of people will say to this, "if you don't do anything wrong you've got nothing to hide". They welcome it. The usual rebuttal I see to this mind

>In fact, a lot of people will say to this, "if you don't do anything wrong you've got nothing to hide". They welcome it. The usual rebuttal I see to this mindset is "well, there's so many laws out there you're bound to accidentally incriminate yourself for something minor". Is that the real concern here? Are people more concerned with autonomous monitoring itself, or the potential outcomes/implications that come with it? I'd love to understand this mindset. (As an aside, I've always advocated for modernizing/reforming laws so that doesn't happen, instead of blaming news tools that help law enforcement do its job.) I think we can agree there is some amount of potential benefit of this kind of pervasive monitoring (right?). I also think we can all agree there are potential downsides as well. In an ideal world, I would think we'd take an approach that minimizes the downsides while maximizing the upsides, but if people are actually taking concern with the loss of privacy to autonomous programming (i.e. non-humans), I have no idea how to measure how "good" such a system is. (As an additional aside, there's obviously potential for misuse by human actors, but that seems like a separate issue to tackle as well: everything has potential for misuse, and needs the proper precautions and safeguards put in place to ensure it isn't misused.)