This is exactly the scenario I was trying to describe. In a world where we're all technically violating the law at some point, and where we're all being monitored intensively, then it's essentially up to those in power to "decide" who is punished and who isn't, without any real standard of measure. In that world, it seems pretty clear who ends up in jail and who doesn't. ACAB.
Conversely, if we lived in the same world of intensive surveillance, but where law enforcement was instead 100% efficient, we wouldn't have the often valuable ability to break the law.
It's possible to say that we should have better laws, or different laws, or only the "right" laws. But we don't actually have any agency over that (or to the extent that we do, it's often a result of breaking those laws). What we do have some agency over is the internet, and the technical means to stymie surveillance.
> Conversely, if we lived in the same world of intensive surveillance, but where law enforcement was instead 100% efficient, we wouldn't have the often valuable ability to break the law.
You can break the law. You just can't avoid punishment. Difference is subtle, but important.
My country lived 20 years in a dictatorship but the people breaking the law (including intellectuals/communists from middle class), for good or for worse, were the ones that forced a change back into democracy. Now the president is an "ex-terrorist", and we have superfluous legislation and bad law enforcement because the ones now in power abhor it. The result is corruption and crime.
This is just arguing two sides of the same crap (paternal, surveillance state in one side; granny, lenient state in the other) without changing the rules of the game (e.g., less state).
>You can break the law. You just can't avoid punishment. Difference is subtle, but important.
Yes and no. If you can break the law and the penalty is tolerable then you can get the same result as if enforcement is less than completely effective: People break the law and just take their lumps.
The trouble is that when a movement is only just getting started and doesn't yet have popular support, the first thing the government will try to do in the face of people taking their lumps is to ratchet up the penalties to try to deter them. And then, against perfect enforcement, the number of people willing to break the law falls off a cliff because it isn't worth spending decades in prison for the vast majority of would-be supporters -- or if it is then all the supporters end up imprisoned indefinitely or executed and the movement fails.
Conversely, if we lived in the same world of intensive surveillance, but where law enforcement was instead 100% efficient, we wouldn't have the often valuable ability to break the law.
It's possible to say that we should have better laws, or different laws, or only the "right" laws. But we don't actually have any agency over that (or to the extent that we do, it's often a result of breaking those laws). What we do have some agency over is the internet, and the technical means to stymie surveillance.