AWKWARD ZOMBIE

You really think the US goverment gives two shits about the standards its supposed to uphold beyond lip service? Eventually, all ideals yield to convenience, expediency and greed.

That's just assuming the worst, though. There's obviously a line between just watching, and abusing that watch. Yes, my internet browing history is scetchy at best, and that mess in my room is...well the nice way to put it is "impressive", but at the same time nothing is done about it.

Or at least I haven't heard anything about it.

It's comparable to a murder investigator finding out a witness was smoking the reefer, or partaking in "unfavorable acts" with a prostitute. Is it against the law? Yes, but he doesn't concern himself with it because he's got to catch a serial killer before he kills 3 more women in the time it'd take him to book the guy for having a joint. He also knows that if he does do that, word will get around and no one will want to help the authorities ever again. So I'm not saying it won't be possible, I'm saying it'd be against their best interests. If they're trying to catch terrorists before they do something horrible, giving shit to some guy who was just a little bitessy is not only going to waste their time, but cause the guy, and anyone else they give shit to, to potentially add to those protests, which would just be more wasted time and energy.

If that is how the system does decide to end up, however...well...that'd be pretty silly on their part.

Another thing you might want to consider is that advertisers, possible employers, insurances and so on are ready to pay a fine sum for information like that.
And this kind of stuff has been sold before that wouldn't be the first time.

What sort of stuff, though? That I have a messy room? That my friend smokes plants? That my roommate is having issues with his relationship? What could advertisers use that for? If my roommate suddenly gets twice as many junk emails for relationship therapy, he'll probably just have twice as many junk emails to not look at in his junk mail box. If I start getting more ads for a maid service in my mailbox, I'll just end up having more peices of colored paper to throw away along with the other stuff they already send me.

While I see where the issue of privacy is coming from, I can't help but notice that the basis for the argument is simply the slight intrusion on communaction privacy, and not actually a worry for a needed revolution.

No one ever thinks about the worst case scenario until it happens to them. But fine, just shrug it off, just dont come bitching if it does bite you in the booty later.

If it does come and bite me in the booty, I'd be more impressed than anything else. Besides, I'm not the type to just bitch his problems away (unless I'm just feeling particularly bitchy that day). If the government decides that my messy room is more important than a planned terrorist attack, then I'll gladly get involved to stop it. I'm not saying to ignore the possible bad shit that could happen, I'm saying to not assume they're definitely going to happen, because that's where a self fulfilling prophesy comes in to fuck things up. I'm saying keeping an eye on things to make sure bad things don't happen is sometimes better than vetoing everything that could possibly end bad. The technology does have some horrible possibilities, but it has its potential for such good. Every major technological advance in the last 150 years has been that way.

That seemingly useless info is still worth millions to companies so they seem to get some use out of it.
When you talk about slight intrusion on privacy, don't forget there's a reason why the government is not allowed to just go and open and read every physical letter that gets sent (ignoring the impracticality of that). That includes letters to your grandma but also letters that only one person and one person only should be allowed to see.

I understand where that's coming from. I come from the medical field, so the whole "doctor/patient confidentiality" thing resonates with me on a personal level. But then again, if the technology is used the way it's supposed to be used, there should be low risk of truly dangerous personal information being leaked. Facebook should obviously be of no concern since you have complete control over it. Phone calls are trickier, but not impossible since you should be recieving any detrimental information in person anyway. I know these are ideals, but the possible negatives don't render it impossible to implement safely.

Except since when has any technology of this nature been used as it was meant to be used?

Here's a great example: drone planes. The kind that fly overhead and take pictures of stuff on the ground. Used in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lancaster, CA.

Yep, that technology intended for surveillance of terrorist movements is going to be an eye in the sky for the entirety of the Antelope Valley's private moments. Fuck warrants, who needs 'em right?

They said the same thing about nuclear energy...hell...they still say that about nuclear energy. The same with internet networking, and, for some reason, wind turbines (less the whole "weaponizing" bit more "What if it shows up in my back yard.") It's good to note the bad things technology can do, but bad to use them as an excuse to never implement them.

But
the bad things far outweigh the good things in the case of breaching the privacy rights of citizens

Funny you should mention wind turbines, or green energy in general. Because that technology is indirectly causing people to die where I live. Solar panels in particular. To place the panels down, a large area has to not only be cleared but tilled and stripped of all plant life so it won't grow back. However, we also have wind turbines, because we have a lot of wind. So we've got large swaths of loose dirt being made for solar panels, which then gets blown into the air, which causes something called valley fever, a condition from the microbes in the dirt.

Would you say that the benefits of the technology outweigh the fact that it's indirectly killing people?

Solar panels and wind turbines have less negative effects (and potential negative effects) on the planet as a whole compared to oil, coal and nuclear power

That's a textbook answer and honestly any time the greater good is invoked it's either hypocritical or a cop-out. Because the greater good can be applied to anything that would benefit people in the long run while sacrificing others, including eugenics, which is almost universally-despised. But for some reason the greater good doesn't apply in that instance.

It's a simple question. Do the benefits of technology outweigh the fact that by installing it people in the area are guaranteed to die, develop breathing problems, or similar issues?

Just by its existence it will ruin many lives and benefit many others. Why does the greater good apply here but not elsewhere, like fracking for instance?

Nuclear power is a severely misunderstood form of energy production. If you ask someone why they are against it they will mention three things: Chernobyl, Long Island and Fukushima. Fun fact, despite several studies, the Long Island event has not been proven to have created any severe health effects. Fukushima has resulted in zero deaths and just a few other adverse effects. Even the uninhabitable zone around the reactors will be shrunk down soon because the radiation levels are within acceptable values. Link to the Fukushima article.

And these events are old reactor designs. Fukushima was nearly obsolete when it happened. Newer technology in the same area, even closer to the epicenter of the earthquake shut down without any incident. And this isn't even touching LFTR designs. If we can actually get thorium reactors operational, meltdowns will be a thing of the past. There is even less waste from it and there is no known way to make weapons from it. There are several other benefits to this as well. Kirk Sorenson on the subject

Back on topic about the surveillance, why does it care that someone knows you smoke cannabis? Well, an insurance company could deny you any aid because "there is a high probability that smoking will cause an accident". However bullshit that may be, they can use it as an excuse. Or maybe the government sees you have opinions that they don't like and you are getting into politics. Let's just put you in prison because of that copyright infringement you didn't even know you committed.

Hell, you anonymously tipped a newspaper about some bad things and you get charged for breaking contract. How did they know? You were the only one from the company/bureau that contacted the newspaper. That is going to make people want to tell on their government when they do something bad...

Need more reasons to not like PRISM? You get a link to a picture on imgur and without you knowing it is childporn. You just broke a very severe law. "But it wasn't your intention?" Sorry. That's not how the law is worded. You downloaded an image to your computer of a minor engaged in a sexual act. You are now on the sex offenders list. Absurd? Yes. This will probably not be the first things that happen, but it sure as hell will at some point.

Here is an example case from the EFF article I linked earlier.

Your insurance just went up. You are a high risk investment to the insurance company.