Because I don't want to have to live my life under constant surveillance. That means I can no longer really live a free life. Even if you never do anything illegal or unethical, if you're always being watched, you're always having to second-guess everything you do. That effect is the entire point of a panopticon.
In the world you seem to be advocating for, the only time we'd actually be free and able to relax and be ourselves is when we pretty much completely disconnect from society.
It's like how when people know that their use of something is being tracked (think the old "Nielsen families", the tracking that streaming services do, or software telemetry) they use that thing very differently than they otherwise would because they are considering the impact their data will have.
> The Flock is a private company does not entitle them to fewer powers than the state. The state has a lot of power and is severely constrained; many of those constraints simply do not apply to private entities and individuals.
Yes, this is my point exactly. It's why exposure to the state is, in many ways, a lesser risk than private companies.
> Those are illegal already, regardless of the method used to obtain the data.
Not always, and even when they are, that often doesn't matter in practice.
Because I don't want to have to live my life under constant surveillance. That means I can no longer really live a free life. Even if you never do anything illegal or unethical, if you're always being watched, you're always having to second-guess everything you do. That effect is the entire point of a panopticon.
In the world you seem to be advocating for, the only time we'd actually be free and able to relax and be ourselves is when we pretty much completely disconnect from society.
It's like how when people know that their use of something is being tracked (think the old "Nielsen families", the tracking that streaming services do, or software telemetry) they use that thing very differently than they otherwise would because they are considering the impact their data will have.
> The Flock is a private company does not entitle them to fewer powers than the state. The state has a lot of power and is severely constrained; many of those constraints simply do not apply to private entities and individuals.
Yes, this is my point exactly. It's why exposure to the state is, in many ways, a lesser risk than private companies.
> Those are illegal already, regardless of the method used to obtain the data.
Not always, and even when they are, that often doesn't matter in practice.