I've learned that many don't have the depth of knowledge I have on the topic and have formed opinions with a puddles worth of information. Sometimes helping people learn more can change minds.
In the future just ask them to unlock their phone and hand it to you so you can look at their email, text and browser history. Watch them hesitate and refuse.
But more and more often, people are responding:
"You're not the government."
So it doesn't work as well as people think it does.
And they'd be right. If you were part of the government, you wouldn't need to ask to see the data on her Facebook or whatever. You'd probably already have some secret access.
I mean they're right. "You're not the government, and if you were you wouldn't need to ask."
Point is, they trust the government implicitly. (And, for most voters, completely, in matters of security.)
Hopefully we can install a sense of where things can lead to.
Most folks aren't familiar with such strong tactics, but hopefully they are starting to become more so with party sanctioned violence (e.g. punch that opposing guy in the face).
What I'm trying to point out is that your line of questioning would not impact her view of the government at all, it would only raise her suspicions about you. To the extent that, at some point, she would call the government to report you. Because the government also conditioned her with the whole mantra:
"If you see something, say something."
Trust in the government, particularly on matters of security, is not so easily undermined.
So what if the people in the majority party want to usurp power from the minority citizens. Even if only for the reason that they want to keep a 'dangerous party' from taking power. Practicalities about search techniques don't matter in such circumstances. Just imagine a party that is ready to punch the minority party members in the face. Such a party wouldn't think twice about a party member taking the liberty to search suspicious non-party members...
In such cases, it'd be nice if no matter who's in power, there are some laws that must be followed. That's pretty much what the bill of rights is about and it includes protection against unreasonable search. The 4th's a good one because it limits a majorities ability to overpower a minority.
The people controlling access to these datasets are not from either party. They are not elected. In the vast majority of cases, they are not even known.
You're assuming politicians are in control of these datasets. I'm just asking you to consider the very real possibility that they are not. In most cases, I'm betting politicians can't even request access to these datasets without tripping flags. (And "leaks" if the people in charge think leaking that politician's request will serve them.) Politicians learned long ago, (ABSCAM), not to mess with these people.
I just don't think you appreciate the depth of the problem if you're thinking on the level of the politician.
I'm not assuming politicians are in control of these datasets. I'm assuming the politicians and the judges they elect are control of the laws and rules that govern the government agencies and employees. And the politicians are elected by Americans.
You point out that many Americans don't feel they have anything to hide, so the 4th doesn't seem to matter to them. I've noticed that too. And so what I see in government and the agencies is a reflection of the these priorities (e.g. Patriot Act, no pushback against NSA, etc). I don't think Americans can absolve themselves of responsibility of the surveillance state. That'd be too convenient.
- To many folks, this sounds conspiracy-theory-ish, and they will just yeah-uhuh until you go away.
- Your actual point (that we may have certain comforting legal protections now does not mean that future governments will respect the same restrictions) will leave a lot of folks cold; whatever hysterics they may get up to when debating politics, most folks do not fear imminent totalitarianism in the US.
- To many folks, there is a huge difference between handing their private correspondence/pictures/finances/whatever to you or their cousin and having it available to "the authorities", whom they presume have legal restrictions, training, protocols, oversight, and the overall motive of protecting the country.
That last one is important: to most people, that's a very good thing in and of itself, and also a reason why they believe the Deep State(tm) won't harm them: they don't want to blow things up, so logically there's no reason to scrutinize at them. This is the root of the "nothing to hide" argument. It also happens to be somewhat true: the TLAs do get up to a lot they shouldn't, and sometimes are outright evil. But they do, in fact, work to protect the republic and don't mess with the vast bulk of regular people.
Remember that winning a debate and changing minds are not the same thing.
I haven't actually tried the approach of role-playing a totalitarian lackey in real life. I get the sense that it could come off as too combative or seem too unrealistic and drive folks away from whatever point I was trying to get across.
I get the complacency. I also largely trust the government employees and agencies given we still have a functioning democracy and mostly intact civil rights. Nevertheless, I see too much erosion of it, so I'm happy whenever we can get together and agree on repairing it.
We have to remind people that The Government isn't some distant "other" - it's made of people you know.
Just like the priesthood apparently attracts pedophiles because of the opportunities it offers, law enforcement is made of people, and some of those people will have gotten in to it opportunities it provides.
Having access to creep on people with surveillance systems is going to attract the type of person who wants to creep on people with surveillance systems unless those systems are rigidly designed to prevent misuse.
That warrant isn't required to dig through your data...the warrant is only required to keep your data from being suppressed as evidence in court.
In this case the analogy being made is that by accepting certain forms of say, government agency snooping, they should therefore be fine with you seeing their data at a whim. However people often see themselves as an irrelevant target to the government and/or that given the vast number of data being collected they would be a blip and less likely to be personally spied upon, so they reason themselves out of being concerned (or having any concern for others that may be impacted).
That parent's history will be leveraged if at all possible, whether they like it or not.
One topic I use to get people thinking more about implications is speeding.
Right now, in most places, there is balance. One can speed, and have reasons that are not to be judged at the moment, and there is some chance of it being detected and a ticket written.
Could just be simple error too. Glance down at speedo, see +15 over, think "oops", and correct with no real worries. Happens all the time.
Now, think about that android phone. Google actually knows when speeding happened, where, and all that. So far, the only action I have seen is Google alerting me to speed traps and a request for me to confirm they are still there.
But, where will that lead?
Does my insurer get that data? Can they get it? Should they get it?
Etc...
Then return to that balance bit.
Say one gets a ticket. With, what I call old world balance in play, the general response is to just be a bit more careful and avoid future tickets. Simple, easy, reasonable.
Now, with all that data collected, a ticket could be just the beginning. A review of your last year of driving reveals chronic behavior! To get past the ticket, monitoring is needed, your car may be required to limit speed to the legal limit at all times, and on it goes!
Same scenario, same person, but two very different outcomes and perceptions! Should there be. Why?
Or, say one is not popular politically, or got sucked into some sort of investigation just by poor timing and proximity, or maybe an unfortunate surname similarity.
What could happen?
One morning you get up to find your license to drive has been revoked and you owe a ton of fines. That happens despite never even being pulled over for years, or ever. Maybe it happens at random, like a drug test too.
One day, boom. Your life is forever different, because data.
All of us are extremely likely to be guilty enough to see the worst max penalty allowed for in the law too.
True right now, today for me, you, everyone we know who drives.
What should happen? Why? What public good does it serve?
These are questions of balance. All of that mass data hoovering going on in pretty much all aspects of our lives is not balanced at all. The human factors we are accustomed to do not exist. The watchers are perfect. Or near perfect enough to be a concern.
The first time Google prompted me about a speed trap, I thought, "spiffy" and saw it as a nice help / value add to Maps.
Then later down the road I thought about where it can all lead. Nowhere good without some new rules, and even with those, trust is difficult.
Frankly, I want to put my phone in a faraday cage after thinking about it all. People vary in their responses, but I can say this line of discussion can often get them thinking about these matters and it is all pretty easy to talk about.
People, even those with light knowledge of these things, can picture their own driving, the phone, and potential outcomes.
Since citizens vote for only one out of a very restricted pool of candidates, every five years, the rational decision is to only consider the candidates' stance on topics directly affecting one's material well-being (so mostly finance/employment-related decisions).
Unless voters are very prosperous, secondary quality-of-life decisions like surveillance are systematically pushed aside in general elections, and that regardless of their education level.