You are aware that that argument can be used to essentially justify anything? If you are worried about police violence, just leave the country! And screw it, w

You are aware that that argument can be used to essentially justify anything? If you are worried about police violence, just leave the country! And screw it, why not give a DNA sample for the federal database? If the government paints a target on you, they can get a blood sample anyhow! That something else is also bad is not a reason for progressing further in that direction. Yes, mass surveillance is bad in any form, that's not a good reason for creating more structures that are prone to mass surveillance. If anything, it's a reason to get rid of those old services that are from a time when mass surveillance was still technically challenging and replace them with something that protects your privacy, rather than something that destroys it for good. Also, no, addressing a problem through legislation and oversight that can much more effectively be addressed by other means, is not a sensible idea. We don't build bridges that can't carry the load that normal citizens without special training are likely to put on them and then legislate to keep them from destroying the brige, we build bridges that simply work, as that's much more efficient. Similarly, it's much more efficient to build a system that doesn't present a gigantic abuse potential and to then try and legislate that problem away. In particular, when the thing that's at risk is the ability to legislate. If centralized communication hubs get too much power, that risks undermining democratic decisionmaking.