Here in the comments I see dozens of instances of the same argument: is legislation like this the result of malicious power-grabbing conspiracy or the blind soc

Here in the comments I see dozens of instances of the same argument: is legislation like this the result of malicious power-grabbing conspiracy or the blind social fear of out-groups? Either way, the conclusion is the same: government-run mass surveillance gets proposed and taken (politically) seriously. It's impossible to use that conclusion alone as evidence for either side of this argument, yet that is precisely what most of the comments here are trying to do! It's such a pointless argument to be had. There is no utility in either answer. It's impossible to fight a conspiracy without constructive evidence, and if a conspiracy is using propaganda to increase fear (as opposed to that fear being organic), then fighting that propaganda directly (as opposed to fighting the fear itself) requires knowledge of the propaganda's source, which itself is evidence of conspiracy! Right now, both perspectives seem likely to be valid, but choosing one over the other is pointless. We are stuck fighting a single conclusion: fear itself; so we may as well focus our energy on that.