I don't think there's anything, any threat out there today that anyone can point to, that justifies placing an entire population under mass surveillance.
We have to call mass surveillance mass surveillance. We can't let governments around the world redefine, and sort of weasel their way out of it by saying this is bulk collection.
No system of mass surveillance has existed in any society that we know of to this point that has not been abused.
Various "wars on drugs" throughout history have killed millions, enslaved millions more, destroyed families, are usually just thin pretenses for mass incarceration, mass surveillance, ethnic cleansing, population control.
I think that when you have any folks in our population who live under the threat of violence, who live under the threat of crime, who don't have the opportunity that others have because the schools in our urban areas are a dreaded failure, because of the positions that Hillary Clinton has taken and the people who support her, that I think any candidate should speak out to say that that type of thing is unacceptable.
I think mass surveillance is a bad idea because a surveillance society is one in which people understand that they are constantly monitored.
Internet exchanges and internet service providers - international fiber optic landing points - these are the key tools that governments go after in order to enable their programs of mass surveillance. If they want to be able to watch the entire population of a country instead of a single individual, you have to go after those bulk interchanges.
If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace.
With communication technology in general, there's a kind of certain critical mass of people. Once you get to 15% of the world's entire population using one communication technology, that's a big deal. It's beyond the theoretical at this point. The people who think it's a fad have probably not been paying that much attention.
Anyone can put anything out at any point and make anything by themselves.
The trust of the mass population can no longer be taken for granted, and any continuation of the 'grand illusion' is dangerous for leaders in today's world.
No matter the specific techniques involved, historically mass surveillance has had several constant attributes. Initially, it is always the country’s dissidents and marginalized who bear the brunt of the surveillance, leading those who support the government or are merely apathetic to mistakenly believe they are immune. And history shows that the mere existence of a mass surveillance apparatus, regardless of how it is used, is in itself sufficient to stifle dissent. A citizenry that is aware of always being watched quickly becomes a compliant and fearful one.
The issue I brought forward most clearly was that of mass surveillance, not of surveillance in general.
Part of what I wanted to do in my book was point out that we have almost reached the point where we can prevent a mass extinction with the science and technology we have today. We can build carbon neutral cities.
If we don't do anything, if we go along with the status quo, we are going to have a mass surveillance world.
What may not have value to you today may have value to an entire population, entire people, an entire way of life tomorrow. And if you don't stand up for it, then who will?
I also think that we [Americans] are operating out of fear in our country. It's not that terrorism is not a threat, but it's not an existential threat. It is not the preeminent threat facing most Americans on any given day, and yet the power of nightmares is so strong.