> However, the danger is really only to people outside the safe herd majority who might draw the wrong sort of attention. So I don't see it being a huge danger.
Unfortunately, you're wrong here. The first trivial counterexample that comes to mind: You cannot have a democratic society if a government agency secretly records the phone calls of all (current and prospective) political representatives.
Your trivial counterexample requires blackmail on a large scale. The problem with blackmail is it might work 75% of the time, but the other 25% end up in jail.
In the case of a politician, from time to time, one of them would say "fuck it" and use their platform to say it to the world.
The subtler approach would be to take dirt on Candidate A and give it to Candidate B so B could win the election. However, in the real world, slinging real mud is just as effective as slinging fake mud in an election. [e.g. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had no actual evidence of their allegations and the majority of Kerry's unit said they were lying...but it still had a major effect on the election anyway] Tbh, the fake mud may be even more effective since you can create the best political narrative you can without being constrained by verifiable facts.
So I'm really not that convinced that the costs of such political meddling [clearly exposed villainy that may force politicians to take action against the Security Apparatus or get voted out of office] is not cost effective. It is far, far more likely that the Security Services would simply behave themselves and make it clear that they wanted a large budget and virtually unlimited powers. They pretty much are at that point already.
(Other than that, the argument that the NSA collecting data is less dangerous because in the U.S. political debate, facts don't matter anyway, doesn't sound too convincing to me.)
You are talking about people attempting to break the law...
"The first batch, published a week ago, included a conversation between Marek Belka, the chief of Poland's central bank, and Interior Minister Bartlomiej Sienkiewicz, in which they discussed how the central bank might use its power to help the government win reelection in 2015. Mr. Belka said that his condition for help would be "the dismissal of the finance minister" in favor of a “technical and apolitical” one. They also discussed the creation of a law that would allow the central bank to buy government debt on secondary markets, a practice known as quantitative easing.
Under Polish law, the central bank has to be independent from political interference. But Jacek Rostowski, the finance minister, did indeed lose his job in November last year and was replaced by Mateusz Szczurek, an economist with no political experience. And new laws that include a provision allowing quantitative easing are also now in the works."
Why yes, if you conspire to break the law and get recorded, this is a bad thing for you. I'm not sure why you cited one of the few cases such a recording would be perfectly acceptable.
That is actually the valid and good purpose of the media and the security apparatus. Exposing political corruption and bringing it to justice wherever possible.
Because such leaks will be used selectively, against anyone the data collecting agencies see as a worthwhile target.
And no, blanket recording of all phone calls is not the "valid and good purpose" of the security apparatus, even if it occasionally exposes political corruption.
> Because such leaks will be used selectively, against anyone the data collecting agencies see as a worthwhile target.
So because they don't remove all corrupt officials, just some, its a bad thing.
Okay. I guess I don't really see that as any different as now and is completely unrelated to the quantity of recordings.
> And no, blanket recording of all phone calls is not the "valid and good purpose" of the security apparatus, even if it occasionally exposes political corruption.
That isn't what I said. I said exposing corruption was the valid and good purpose. It had nothing to do with recording all phone calls, merely some conversations in restaurants which is what you were talking about being recorded is a valid and good purpose.
You don't get to just flip flop around and re-arrange the context of the subject you brought up [recording people having private meetings in restaurants involving illegal corruption] and [recording everyone's conversations].
>So because they don't remove all corrupt officials, just some, its a bad thing.
Yes! Absolutely! That's the worst-case. It means that the likes of Keith Alexander and James Clapper (and others who they may be in cooperation with) get to choose the government (to a degree sufficient to suit their needs).
Unfortunately, you're wrong here. The first trivial counterexample that comes to mind: You cannot have a democratic society if a government agency secretly records the phone calls of all (current and prospective) political representatives.