I suggest to remove the first sentence that is just a distraction from the later points that you make, especially without some further elaboration. If we can c

I suggest to remove the first sentence that is just a distraction from the later points that you make, especially without some further elaboration. If we can create some technology, then dismissing it because it can be used to do bad things seems futile. Bad actors will create and use it anyway[1]. If you want to protect some secrets then have a decent security protocols in place, network of trusted people, slightly different data encrypted with different public keys and so on. I don't think government intelligence needs projects like this to do what they want to do. I doubt you are trying to argue not to have knifes because they kill people. You work at Google so I think your context may come from the fact that you can easily put things that make a lot of sense after considering them carefully in a bad light when presenting them to public without enough context. But you can do that based on any information, not necessarily private. In general, in politics, data doesn't seem to matter all that much, unfortunately. We don't have democracy. We have some media-cracy. Majority of voters opinions are heavily influenced by the media. So it's them who actually make decisions (or whoever controls them). That's why Snowden for example, probably had much more influence on people who already thought about those things, than it had on general public. 1. bioweapons come to mind and those are indeed scary as our current defense is pretty much what I'm considering to be futile