This one, although I wouldn't choose quite that phrasing. Most people don't seem to care too much, so we're condoning the behavior via democratic process. I wouldn't be surprised if a significant chunk of people support it in the name of stopping the terrorists. I don't agree with that, but such is democracy. Especially in a system where we effectively vote on a whole world view by electing representatives, instead of voting on laws ourselves. Joe Schmoe might be anti-surveillance state but even more pro-gun, so if his options are anti-surveillance and anti-gun or pro both, he picks the pro-gun one even though his views don't entirely align.
The fact of the matter is that the duopoly of US politics are both pro-surveillance aside from a select few. It simply doesn't matter because there's nothing you can do about it.
Most people don't care. The vocal minority who do care have a habit of jumping the shark. That lets perfect be the enemy of the good and in the end no policy gets printed.
I think at this point a lot of people who genuinely cared have just switched to doing their best to cover themselves since clearly the masses are perfectly fine living in a panopticon.
How convenient.
https://privacysos.org/technologies_of_controlnaurus/
The question more people should be asking: How can this kind of vacuum-style, society wide surveillance exist alongside promises of democratic governance, and parallel to constitutional guarantees that the government will stay out of our business unless we are suspected to have committed a crime?
Every time I look at this stuff, I can't help thinking that our political leaders in Congress and the bureaucrats at the FBI must be really envious of the kind of power states like Saudi Arabia and China have over their domestic populations, and would create such a system here if they could.
