I think it’s important to point this out in a time when we have federal agencies building and testing ever larger databases in the name of keeping us all safe. I don’t object to the principle of data collection and analysis- I object to the PRACTICE of it because I have first-hand experience with the ridiculous way people use their databases. And the wider the range of users entering stuff into your database, the greater the number of morons there will be to screw it up. Which might be an acceptable cost of doing business for a lot of commercial databases- no one’s human/civil/Constitutional rights are violated if Amazon miscalculates my fiction preferences- but it is absolutely NOT a way to determine who is and is not a terrorist, who is and is not detained at airports, etc.

Technology cannot save us because it is dependent on the judgment and discretion of users, and some users just don’t have any.

The real tell here is in the comments of former state police superintendent Thomas E. Hutchins, who is quoted as saying “I don’t believe the First Amendment is any guarantee to those who wish to disrupt the government.” Certainly that’s true for serious cases of “disrupt,” but does our government – or any of us – have some right to be completely free of any disruption or inconvenience at all times?

The idea that it’s reasonable to hamstring, say, death penalty advocates or opponents who want to make their voices heard is just offensive, insane, and anti-democratic.