> Their argument relies on the idea that it can be a net negative but provides little evidence that it is a net negative. That's the problem with the majority

> Their argument relies on the idea that it can be a net negative but provides little evidence that it is a net negative. That's the problem with the majority of these cases, they involve testing the limits of what the government is allowed to do by defending the rights of really bad people whom most people have zero sympathy for. I don't really expect the DEA to serve a no-knock warrant on my residence because Amazon currently thinks I'm a pot grower (due to buying a bluetooth thermometer which is apparently popular with actual pot growers) but if the government had All The Data I'm actually a pretty low risk for a bad bust once you input it all into the PreCrime2000™ algorithm. I personally feel its the responsibility of the people who wish to erode our civil rights to prove the net benefit far outweighs the protections currently we enjoy as a direct result of British colonial abuses -- which, IMHO, is all the argument you need since the Bill of Rights wasn't created out of thin air for some idealized perfect society to strive for.