Note their argument: > Haidar of Privacy International says that creating powers to collect more of people’s data doesn’t result in “more security” for people.

Note their argument: > Haidar of Privacy International says that creating powers to collect more of people’s data doesn’t result in “more security” for people. “Building the data retention capabilities of companies and a vast range of government agencies doesn't mean that intelligence operations will be enhanced,” Haidar says. “In fact, we argue that it makes us less secure as this data becomes vulnerable to being misused or abused.” What's most important is what they don't say, and that they don't say it: It's a threat to the minority's freedom and safety, their right to hold unpopular views, dissent, and protest. That is the definition of freedom. Saying something 'acceptable' is allowed with or without free speech. As Isaac Asimov (supposedly) said: "Politically popular speech has always been protected: even the Jews were free to say ‘Heil Hitler.’" But they've given up on that argument, which means they implicitly communicate that they don't believe it, and support the notion that the majority is all that matters. The only way to defeat these authoritarian, anti-free movements is to stop accommodating them (and thus signaling acceptance of their rule) and to talk assertively and confidently and knowledgeably about universal freedom.