Like seriously, that was like saying that arresting the purveyors of contaminated, tainted meat is harming the food supply. It’s an argument that seems to be intentionally reversed in order to destroy logical debate.
Could it be that the original commenter is saying state and corporate spying gets justified with these kind of succesful and positive operations, and this gives states the goodwill to push for deeper surveillance, which is then used unethically?
Think how the world changed after the PATRIOT (lol) act, and how many terrorists have been actually detained in exchange for such invasive measures on the general public. I'd bet the most benefited from all these years of mass surveillance have been advertisers, not law enforcement.
> Could it be that the original commenter is saying state and corporate spying gets justified with these kind of succesful and positive operations, and this gives states the goodwill to push for deeper surveillance, which is then used unethically?
I think so, but this is backwards. State and corporate spying gets justified by the scammers and fraudsters, not by whether or not the takedown operations are successful. If scammers and fraudsters weren't doing wildly unpopular things like taking health care systems hostage with ransomware, etc, we'd all have a lot more ammo to tell the cops to respect our privacy.
