> That rhetorical imbalance makes it safe and straightforward for power politicians and police to argue that they should get to read everyone's emails. The fun

> That rhetorical imbalance makes it safe and straightforward for power politicians and police to argue that they should get to read everyone's emails. The fundamental problem is that given any permission (an extension of trust), individuals will--100% of the time--abuse it in the absence of oversight. It's not a matter of if/when, only a matter of to what degree. But being individuals, we are empowered to choose how we grant or revoke such permissions to other individuals. If you stop trusting your spouse, you can revoke their access to your email. Government is a superset of Individuals. There is no greater clique they are accountable to. Any permission extended (surrendered) to it is an implicit conversion of ownership. If you stop trusting your government to act responsibly with surveillance, you can't revoke that permission. It's no longer yours. ...like the toy you hand over to the playground bully because he "just wants to see it for a second." He was polite enough to state the conditions of release upfront-- but nothing on the playground compelled him to actually abide by his own terms. You find out too late he's a liar, and if you're lucky, you'll get your toy back, when he's done with it, and likely in pieces. It's frustrating trying to protect children from amorphous threats whose access methods are abstract, virtual and obfuscated by incomprehensible technology and encryption. The question is always whether we maintain absolute anarchy or accept nanny-state dystopia. Maybe it's time we consider kicking kids off the internet altogether before surrendering any more personal rights to a bully with the weight-class of an entire institution.