You asked if the technology is actually used this way. The answer is, yes, it is (or at least similar abilities are misused in a similar way).
> Not really, if you get into the story it's much less about abusing technology, and much more about abusing FISA courts.
It's about law enforcement having easy access to information that they're not supposed to use unless they have good reason to, and them using the information even when they don't have good reason to.
> I also think that said courts releasing a public reprimand for that behavior is precisely the sort of accountability and transparency you don't get it in authoritarian regimes.
True, though I would have preferred denying those requests in the first place.
> The system isn't working perfectly by any means, but it isn't some techno-fascist hellscape.
Yet.
You seem to be attacking the thesis "these tools can only lead us to techno-fascism". But how about the converse thesis: "When fascism shows up, it will inevitably use these tools. And therefore we should be cautious about building these tools, and allowing the authorities to use them."
> You could remove the technology from the story entirely and it would be the same.
Without the technology, the data would not be (ab)used on anything like the same scale.
Look, I'm not entirely opposed to law enforcement having information available when they need it. But we keep expecting them to only use it when they have legally-recognized good reason, and they keep going well beyond that. We should know by now that there will be too many people in law enforcement who will attempt to abuse the process and subvert the limitations, and we should start thinking seriously about how to prevent that.
Whether "we can't prevent that (well enough)" is grounds for not building the tools at all is a different question, one we are not forced to answer quite yet. We should at least start at "how can we make these (much) harder to abuse".
> Not really, if you get into the story it's much less about abusing technology, and much more about abusing FISA courts.
It's about law enforcement having easy access to information that they're not supposed to use unless they have good reason to, and them using the information even when they don't have good reason to.
> I also think that said courts releasing a public reprimand for that behavior is precisely the sort of accountability and transparency you don't get it in authoritarian regimes.
True, though I would have preferred denying those requests in the first place.
> The system isn't working perfectly by any means, but it isn't some techno-fascist hellscape.
Yet.
You seem to be attacking the thesis "these tools can only lead us to techno-fascism". But how about the converse thesis: "When fascism shows up, it will inevitably use these tools. And therefore we should be cautious about building these tools, and allowing the authorities to use them."
> You could remove the technology from the story entirely and it would be the same.
Without the technology, the data would not be (ab)used on anything like the same scale.
Look, I'm not entirely opposed to law enforcement having information available when they need it. But we keep expecting them to only use it when they have legally-recognized good reason, and they keep going well beyond that. We should know by now that there will be too many people in law enforcement who will attempt to abuse the process and subvert the limitations, and we should start thinking seriously about how to prevent that.
Whether "we can't prevent that (well enough)" is grounds for not building the tools at all is a different question, one we are not forced to answer quite yet. We should at least start at "how can we make these (much) harder to abuse".