Entering the Privacy & Anonymity Atmosphere. What are the costs?

[20kevin20]

Throughout this one decade since Bitcoin's genesis, cryptocurrencies have advanced to a point where we now have a general idea of what makes Bitcoin better than other cryptocurrencies, why we need certain functions to be added to Bitcoin and so on.

One particular concern I have been confronting for a while now is how improving privacy through Bitcoin may change the King of cryptocurrencies forever - and it may actually be for the worse.

To be fair, I am heavily obsessed with privacy and a lot of members out here probably already know it. I have a lot of respect for those who fight for their own right to be anonymous and to have the wanted level of anonymity without being considered a criminal by anyone else. So props to o_e_l_e_o, LoyceV and all the other users who've taught me a lot of stuff about this. You've helped me turn it into an obsession.

Today we are slowly disrupting the equilibrum between pseudonymity and anonymity to the point where anonymity takes the lead. With that being said, by taking a look over both what's getting ready for the next Bitcoin updates and what we already have, we can see that the list of things that give you more privacy through Bitcoin increased significantly throughout the years: mixers, Schnorr signatures, Bisq, atomic swaps etc. Someone who has the necessary knowledge could actually be almost entirely under the invisible cloak while using Bitcoin. In my opinion, at a first glance, it looks great.

Lately, we have seen so much support from so many governments it simply feels like they want Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies to exist. At a first glance, once again, it looks great. But have you ever wondered why they are not so hostile anymore?

Could it be because they already have the necessary tools to properly analyze BTC's blockchain so well they aren't afraid of decentralization anymore? Maybe. Let's follow up this scenario.


Monero is a cryptocurrency focused mostly on privacy. In my opinion, it is the perfect opportunity for us to see and find out what the future may hold for Bitcoin as soon as we start taking the privacy & anonymity road.

Firstly, the masses have been manipulated through mainstream media to believe that Monero represents the heaven for criminals - some kind of safehouse to protect themselves against authorities. This is what all of my friends who've ever heard of Monero thought it is.

Secondly, throughout the years, so many companies and authorities have turned hostile against Monero. In 2020, we have seen in my opinion the strongest push against it. Here are some of the delistings from this year:
     - Bithumb Under Pressure to Delist Monero as Nth Room Ire Continues
     - Monero (XMR), ZCash (ZEC), Bytecoin (BCN) to Be Delisted From Australian Exchanges: Analyzing Reasons Behind Delisting
     - Huobi Korea delists Monero, piling pressure on Bithumb

And there's more. Some people go through worse stuff than simple delistings, such as this Reddit user who's had his XMR seized. Only recently, the US authorities have begun to desperately look for a way to track Monero. An article talking about XMR being tracked by the US Homeland Security has mentioned one very important thing to take into account:

Created at the request of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), CipherTrace said the tool would be beneficial for the privacy coin for, among other things, getting listed again in exchanges that delisted XMR.

This is alarming in my opinion. I think I have enough brain to understand that they are basically saying Monero needs to not be Monero anymore in order to be accepted. The thing is, people do not understand that this is what is going on with Bitcoin right now. Through regulations, centralized parties, non-trustless transactions and tracing capabilities, we are using Bitcoin the way they want us to.

Now that we know how Monero is seen from the government's perspective, we have an idea about the way privacy is treated nowadays by them. Users of coin mixers, the tools that make blockchain analysis painful to whoever wants to try it, have also started to be considered as enemies to a growing number of exchanges.

In consequence, we have seen that attempts of improving Bitcoin's privacy are starting to turn some companies hostile against users who are trying to be more private. So now, let's take it the Monero way. The result is, by improving BTC's privacy aspects, we are going to likely turn hostility's power on.

Are the possible costs of inclining the equilibrum of pseudonymity and anonymity more towards the latter worth them? How do we value which is better between a more private Bitcoin that leads to hostility and a less private Bitcoin that is "adopted" more than ever before thanks to the government's abilities of analyzing the entire blockchain history?

[o_e_l_e_o]

You've helped me turn it into an obsession.

It's certainly an obsession of mine, but it is also lamentable that it you have to pay attention to what you are doing constantly, to which websites or services you use, to what products you buy, to what software you install, etc., to be able to keep your privacy. It is no longer the default setting.

The hostility towards Monero is certainly food for thought. I would offer one counter point - with Monero, privacy is the default setting. If you want to keep your privacy with bitcoin, then you must actively seek it out, and not many people will do that.

I think a better comparison might be to compare bitcoin to the internet, and all these privacy enhancing methods to Tor. Yes, they exist, and yes, if used properly, can make it much more difficult to track you, but only the minority of people are going to seek them out and use them. At the end of the day, the government is interested in taking their cut. They are going to see far higher returns for their money by regulating exchanges and having them report the 99% of bitcoin users who use centralized exchanges so they can check they are paying their taxes than they are trying to break mixers or coinjoins.

I firmly dislike the all the steps centralized exchanges and services are taking against users who value their privacy. But rather than saying "this is the price for adoption", I would like to see the community fight back against it by stopping giving their custom to these centralized exchanges and services. We shouldn't just be rolling over, completing ever more invasive KYC, and letting third parties and governments take ever more control away from us.

[Upgrade00]

I wouldn't describe myself as someone who is obsessed about my privacy, maybe cause I'm only just recently realizing the dangers of identity leaks and data harvesting. I currently take the most practical steps to reasonably protect myself.

Are the possible costs of inclining the equilibrum of pseudonymity and anonymity more towards the latter worth them?

As said above by @o_e_l_e_o, we should create an environment where there should not be any cost of wanting to maintain anonymity while transacting, that is sort of the reason that originally attracted people to Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.
At this point in time, the system is not too hostile and one can still navigate through anonymously, whether it would be worth it in five or ten years would depend on the adaptations and evolutions that would take place.

How do we value which is better between a more private Bitcoin that leads to hostility and a less private Bitcoin that is "adopted" more than ever before thanks to the governments abilities of analyzing the entire blockchain history?

Bitcoin was stiffly met with hostility from centralized sectors when it was launched, the government's are probably taking an alternative approach to put a leash on the network if they can not outrightly control it. I would rather we had a more privacy centered community which governments would struggle to regulate than the other option - Ease and convenience usually comes at the cost of privacy and decentralization.

[pixie85]

I'm a bit crazy as well so for me a bitcoin that isn't adopted and stays the way it is would be much better than a fully adopted coin with no privacy.

I have access to electronic fiat money. Whenever I want I can pay with a transparent bank transfer. That's not what I want and that's not what I expect from cryptos.

We shouldn't go into obscurity and make bitcoin go into hiding but we also can't make it into another electronic form of fiat.

[Lordhermes]

Every new projects came with a unique feature(s) just for the purpose of overcoming bitcoin in the system after bitcoin was created, the exhibited feature of Monero is the default genesis from beginning as stated on whitepaper as to come out with something unique from others, but its fine, meanwhile, same malicious acts and criminality had both occurred using Monero and bitcoin and many others too, but at such bitcoin wins because of its first mover advantage not because of its moderate/less privacy system. This implies the stability, bitcoin had acquired even if it accepts same characteristics of excessive privacy policy.

In a rare sense, Monero higher privacy is good one and i can't see the reason why there's this rejection and delisting of XMR token, and if so, same rejection should also goes to mixers too as well. Conclusively, bitcoin would still be adopted either with more or less privacy policy because of its first mover advantage and wide usage.


I might sound too off point but pardon my manners about my question I'm going to ask o_e_l_e_o, at your personal text, you opened to buying XMR for btc, "ain't this negative and repulsive news from OP about Monero stops you from accepting the offer?

[Darker45]

I'm not sure if we could ever strike a balance between anonymity and government. I mean we, the people, may prefer to stay anonymous almost at all times while the government will also make sure that what the people are doing are closely monitored and under a certain degree of surveillance for the sake of security and safety of the larger whole. A common ground may prove hard to find between the two.

Which makes me think that Bitcoin in its current pseudonymous form is the best form, but only insofar as government's acceptance is concerned. And I guess everybody want's this. That Bitcoin is accepted, even regulated, so that it could reach wider adoption. However, I am also feeling as if Bitcoin's freedom of development is significantly curtailed for the sake of adoption, which shouldn't be the way. Bitcoin would lose its being Bitcoin if it were to develop only within government terms.

That wouldn't be acceptable. So I seem to be torn between the idea of giving in a little and enjoy legality and sticking to complete freedom and pursue anonymity and probably continue with the enmity.

[Yogee]

Good post 20kevin20

There is an ongoing race between coin developers, anonymity services like Mixers or Coinjoins and paid transparency "advocates" like Chainalysis or Ciphertrace.

Is Monero the only cryptocurrency that has maintained its position as anonymous? I've read statements from previously advertised anon coins Zcash and Dash that they have features which makes them compliant to AML.

.......

Two days ago, I read a topic in beginner's & help asking about the generation of change address every time you send bitcoin. There are responses that it helps increase privacy but services like https://www.walletexplorer.com/ makes it easier to link addresses based on transactions. If you actively use one HD wallet, it may still be traced back to you. Coin control helps break the link but not many wallets offer such feature yet and I don't think most of us are aware of such method to increase transaction privacy.

.......

I think Blockchair.com deserves a mention here too. I like how they rate each transaction with "Privacy meter". Higher score tells you that privacy invading transaction trackers will have a harder time while a low score indicates an easy time to connect recipient and change address.

[Eureka_07]

Our security and privacy should always be the priority. If these services and government is breaking the main reason why these such cryptocurrencies were created, then if they become successful doing it so, the Bitcoin we first known wil not be Bitcoin anymore.

I'm thinking that if the government noticed that lots of users improved their anonymity with their use of bitcoin network, they might just turn againsts on it again and maybe declare it as illegal. Or probably they might force their people who uses it to compromise their privacy through much tightened regulation of exchanges and other services involving bitcoin but not limited to it.

[tranthidung]

services like https://www.walletexplorer.com/ makes it easier to link addresses based on transactions. If you actively use one HD wallet, it may still be traced back to you.

Like these

• A Large Farm of accounts cheating on Sig. Campaigns [HUGE UPDATE! 04/28/2020]
• A Farm of High Ranking accounts abusing Sig. Campaigns - Ban Evasion.

I think Blockchair.com deserves a mention here too. I like how they rate each transaction with "Privacy meter". Higher score tells you that privacy invading transaction trackers will have a harder time while a low score indicates an easy time to connect recipient and change address.

It does not actually help when you use Privacy meter checking carelessly. Everytime you put your bitcoin address or txhash on one block explorer and enter to check its status, information, you should be aware that the explorer has your data (IP address). Mostly, the owners check their addresses, hashes so if one bitcoin address is connected with a specific IP address many time, it can be a very good indicator that the IP address belong to the owner. Additionally, the company of block explorer can sell their data, includes your privacy to third-party companies.

In a nutshell, if you use Blockchair.com's Privacy meter to check your transactions, address, privacy score, please "Do it with Tor browser!"

Besides blockchair.com, you can use https://blockstream.info/tx/ to check privacy (do it with Tor).

Coin control helps break the link but not many wallets offer such feature yet and I don't think most of us are aware of such method to increase transaction privacy.

The level of anonymity will be made from steps before and after mixing. Recombination of your mixed coins is not good and should be avoided.

theymos has his succinct guide on mixing methods.

• https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Privacy
• https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CoinJoin
• CoinJoin: Bitcoin privacy for the real world
• [Guide] Decent mixing methods
• Enhanced privacy with Wasabi & Samourai wallets

[pakhitheboss]

I wonder what makes you think that your internet connection is secured and private. You might be using a VPN but do you actually believe VPN works in this era.

Anything which is a threat to the government will be removed from the system, Bitcoin is no longer a threat that is why it has survived to date. Whereas Monero is and that is the reason it is being subjected to such treatment .

Actually Privacy is a joke now days, the things that you considered secured in 2010 are no longer secured. Some may not believe me but everything that you use in your day to day work is no longer secured.

[hatshepsut93]

In consequence, we have seen that attempts of improving Bitcoin's privacy are starting to turn some companies hostile against users who are trying to be more private. So now, let's take it the Monero way. The result is, by improving BTC's privacy aspects, we are going to likely turn hostility's power on.

If Bitcoin will get banned by global powers like the US and EU, it will become useless pretty much instantly. The market will be gone, it will only be traded on darknet markets, and liquidity will 0.01% of today's value. And you can forget about ever buying large amounts of coins, because all banks have financial monitoring rules, so every large transaction must be additionally verified. And of course there will be no adoption, who would want to risk, if there's nothing to gain but a lot to lose.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I currently take the most practical steps to reasonably protect myself.

There is obviously a middle ground that most users will settle in between the extreme of someone like me who refuses to use centralized exchanges or complete KYC anywhere and solely trades peer-to-peer, and someone who throws their personal information out left, right, and center for every scam ICO, airdrop, and bounty that is going. Completing KYC at one or two exchanges is often a step people have already taken before they come to terms with the privacy implications of doing so, at which point they can't take back their information. Just be aware that if you have done this, any coins from elsewhere will be linked to your identity if you combine them with coins from that exchange, unless you mix/coinjoin/otherwise obfuscate them first.

I might sound too off point but pardon my manners about my question I'm going to ask o_e_l_e_o, at your personal text, you opened to buying XMR for btc, "ain't this negative and repulsive news from OP about Monero stops you from accepting the offer?

No. To date, they have been unable to break and track Monero, otherwise they wouldn't be offering a bounty in excess of half a million dollars for anyone who can. They've obviously been trying and have failed so far. That's a pretty strong argument for Monero. The fact that various centralized exchanges are not accepting it is irrelevant to me, since I do not use any centralized exchanges.

the government will also make sure that what the people are doing are closely monitored and under a certain degree of surveillance for the sake of security and safety of the larger whole.

A myth. There is no evidence that mass surveillance prevents crime or terrorism.

[kryptqnick]

I think that making Bitcoin more private is not worth it. Delisting, pressure and tracking oriented specifically on Bitcoin is not what the community needs. Satoshi did not make transactions anonymous, opting for transparency instead. I think it's a reasonable choice that allows advocating the right of people to use Bitcoin as well as that Bitcoin might be more transparent that, say, banking system. Some compromises will need to by made (like KYC when big sums are being exchanged), but at least Bitcoin can become accepted by the world we live in. Monero is 5 times below ATH in terms of its price, whereas Bitcoin is only 2 times below. I don't think many would be thrilled if Bitcoin stabilized around $4k.

[20kevin20]

I would offer one counter point - with Monero, privacy is the default setting. If you want to keep your privacy with bitcoin, then you must actively seek it out, and not many people will do that.

I think a better comparison might be to compare bitcoin to the internet, and all these privacy enhancing methods to Tor. Yes, they exist, and yes, if used properly, can make it much more difficult to track you, but only the minority of people are going to seek them out and use them.

I would say this is another potential issue. If privacy is a choice, it's even worse as they're going to consider anyone who wants privacy a suspect. The Tor comparison you made actually helps my point: as far as I know, FBI labels you as a possible criminal as soon as you begin anonymizing your Internet history. By using Bitcoin with additional privacy added to the default, they know you're looking for it.

I would like to see the community fight back against it by stopping giving their custom to these centralized exchanges and services. We shouldn't just be rolling over, completing ever more invasive KYC, and letting third parties and governments take ever more control away from us.

The community will most likely not fight against KYC and invasive regulations. It's a thought I have already been accustomed to, unfortunately.

At this point in time, the system is not too hostile and one can still navigate through anonymously, whether it would be worth it in five or ten years would depend on the adaptations and evolutions that would take place.

It becomes more and more painful to nagivate anonymously through BTC though. As I said in the OP, mixer users are starting to get their balances frozen for using coin mixing services. This means that, while Bitcoin isn't anonymous itself, trying to go off the radar leads to quite brutal repercussions.

We shouldn't go into obscurity and make bitcoin go into hiding but we also can't make it into another electronic form of fiat.

I agree that we need to find a way somewhere in the middle, but both have large disadvantages: privacy equals hostility and transparency equals surveillance. If we have the option to be anonymous, it leads to those specific users having to confront the suspicions of authorities. It's bad no matter how you take it.


@Lordhermes

The rejection is there because Monero lets you sit in the dark without having to worry about leaking any information about yourself. There obviously are some bad ways to use XMR as well - although it's private, little mistakes may cost one person all the struggle they've previously had to cover their real information up. However, default privacy does eliminate some of the concerns. Had XMR been the exact way it currently is but without being focused on privacy, it would've been easily adopted anywhere.


@Darker45

I understand your opinion and agree with most of it, but fairness should exist. Is it fair for us to have to compromise anything the state wants just for the sake of "adoption"? Why should there be understanding coming just from one of the two sides instead of both?

The more they'll block our access to privacy, the more "rebels" there will be.


@Yogee

I have never studied Dash but as far as I know, it's centralized and you have to basically pay in order to access the privacy features. The privacy meter Blockchair has published seems nice at a first look, but I wouldn't use it honestly. By looking your own txs up through them, you're giving them hints about who you are. Check @tranthidung's reply for a proper answer to this concern.


@hatshepsut93

Agreed, and that's exactly the reason I have posted this thread as a concern.

[Darker45]

the government will also make sure that what the people are doing are closely monitored and under a certain degree of surveillance for the sake of security and safety of the larger whole.

A myth. There is no evidence that mass surveillance prevents crime or terrorism.

I wouldn't call it a myth. To be quite fair, although I don't have complete data to support it, there must have been countless of terrorism activities and other crimes which were prevented out of intelligence information gathered through surveillance and monitoring efforts. Not to mention crimes solved through the same activities. 

@Darker45

I understand your opinion and agree with most of it, but fairness should exist. Is it fair for us to have to compromise anything the state wants just for the sake of "adoption"? Why should there be understanding coming just from one of the two sides instead of both?

The more they'll block our access to privacy, the more "rebels" there will be.

For sure, we are not going to completely give in to each and every demand of the state just for the sake of adoption. But I guess there will certainly be some bending. And that does not only come from Bitcoin. It must be counted as a sort of a compromise on the part of the state to accept and regulate Bitcoin despite them obviously not wanting to. They are left with no other option but to face it because it is already there and trying to stop it at all cost will simply amount to nothing.

Privacy is both a right and a privilege I would say. With so many crimes being carefully planned in secret, the state must also be left with no choice but to dig a little deeper up to a certain degree where a little of privacy is breached.

[o_e_l_e_o]

there must have been countless of terrorism activities and other crimes which were prevented out of intelligence information gathered through surveillance and monitoring efforts.

If there are "countless", then why is there no evidence of this? Here are three different reports from 5 years apart, which all say the same thing - every time the evidence is examined, there is no evidence to find that mass surveillance is effective, at all.

https://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-phone-snooping-illegal-court-finds-2020-9 - "The NSA phone-spying program exposed by Edward Snowden didn't stop a single terrorist attack, federal judge finds."
https://www.wired.com/2017/03/mass-spying-isnt-just-intrusive-ineffective/ - "But the track record of the collection programs Edward Snowden revealed provides little evidence that massive surveillance will help us identify future terrorist attacks or mitigate these new risks."
https://theintercept.com/2015/11/17/u-s-mass-surveillance-has-no-record-of-thwarting-large-terror-attacks-regardless-of-snowden-leaks/ - "NSA’s mass surveillance programs do not have a track record — before or after Snowden — of identifying or thwarting actual large-scale terrorist plots."

The government and associated three letter agencies therefore fully know mass surveillance is ineffective at preventing attacks, and yet continue to spend billions of dollars on it every year. Why? Because mass surveillance was never about preventing attacks; it's about population control.

[20kevin20]

I wouldn't call it a myth. To be quite fair, although I don't have complete data to support it, there must have been countless of terrorism activities and other crimes which were prevented out of intelligence information gathered through surveillance and monitoring efforts. Not to mention crimes solved through the same activities.  


For sure, we are not going to completely give in to each and every demand of the state just for the sake of adoption. But I guess there will certainly be some bending. And that does not only come from Bitcoin. It must be counted as a sort of a compromise on the part of the state to accept and regulate Bitcoin despite them obviously not wanting to. They are left with no other option but to face it because it is already there and trying to stop it at all cost will simply amount to nothing.

I'm quite sure there are way less Bitcoin criminals than you imagine. Just think of how hard it is first of all to learn how Bitcoin works, how to keep your own identity as anonymous/private as possible etc. Most "crimes" here are probably scams, but if you were to compare that to the amount of scams happening in USD every day you'd be surprised. I honestly don't think there are many criminals that'd say "hey, let's to this but for Bitcoin".

Having to accept and regulate Bitcoin is imo part of their way of hiding the fact that they would've rather kicked BTC out of the economical system. Banning BTC would've been seen by all of us as banning our rights to economical freedom. They basically had no choice but to accept the idea that cryptocurrencies exist. However, if we go the privacy/anonymity way, I am afraid they may reconsider.

Privacy is both a right and a privilege I would say. With so many crimes being carefully planned in secret, the state must also be left with no choice but to dig a little deeper up to a certain degree where a little of privacy is breached.

I hate how the vast majority of people talk about Bitcoin crimes as if they even occupy a significant percentage of the money used/stolen in crimes. Before they fix up Bitcoin's criminal activity, they should first and foremost fix the fiat one that's been going on for centuries.

If a degree where a little privacy can be breached exists, we're talking about the exact same thing as US Government enforcing WhatsApp and other platforms and services to introduce backdoors in their software/hardware. A backdoor just for the government is impossible to create. Once there's a backdoor, it's available for everyone. Once there's a possible privacy breach in Bitcoin, it's available to all of us.

The thing is, about everything the government creates "as an effort to fight against criminal activity" can be used against us but the part I put in brackets is their perfect excuse to shut our mouths up. However, they're starting to exceed the limits..

I'm now going to push this a bit further than I should - so excuse one off-topic line - but even a brain microchip implant in the future for everyone seems amazing if you tell me it's going to be the perfect way to solve the many millions of annual cases of disappearances or lots of neurological disorders that currently cannot be solved, but that could be just one excuse for actual population control as o_e_l_e_o said above.

Does anyone really trust their own government? I can personally confirm the answer is negative for at least 90% of the people I know.

[Darker45]

there must have been countless of terrorism activities and other crimes which were prevented out of intelligence information gathered through surveillance and monitoring efforts.

If there are "countless", then why is there no evidence of this? Here are three different reports from 5 years apart, which all say the same thing - evert time the evidence is examined, there is no evidence to find that mass surveillance is effective, at all.

~snip~

The government and associated three letter agencies therefore fully know mass surveillance is ineffective at preventing attacks, and yet continue to spend billions of dollars on it every year. Why? Because mass surveillance was never about preventing attacks; it's about population control.

Well, does this count? 30 Terrorist Plots Foiled: How the System Worked This was published a decade ago. Accordingly:

Based on public information, the U.S. has foiled at least 30 terrorist attacks since 9/11. In two cases, the outcome was the result of sheer luck. The foiling of the rest was the result of good law enforcement and effective intelligence gathering and information sharing.

Anyway, I am not defending mass surveillance. Indiscriminate snooping must be ridiculously costly as it is unethical. But, as I've said, there must be a certain degree of surveillance which the government cannot do away with in its role as the primary keeper of peace and order. This might entail breaking into individual private lives which is definitely unacceptable to us as much as it is inevitable to the law enforcers. That is why I am a little bit torn and would rather not choose an extreme side.

Privacy must be treated with sanctity if I may say but it cannot be made an absolute excuse and be invoked in every step of the way. Certain individuals who are monitored under reasonable suspicion cannot just easily get away by saying their lives are private.

~snip~

I'm quite sure there are way less Bitcoin criminals than you imagine.

I don't imagine there's a lot either. I think there's very few of them vis-a-vis the total number.

Privacy is both a right and a privilege I would say. With so many crimes being carefully planned in secret, the state must also be left with no choice but to dig a little deeper up to a certain degree where a little of privacy is breached.

I hate how the vast majority of people talk about Bitcoin crimes as if they even occupy a significant percentage of the money used/stolen in crimes.

I don't think the vast majority of people talk this way. There's just probably only a handful of them left who remain stubborn with their idea of Bitcoin as a criminal's currency.

Does anyone really trust their own government? I can personally confirm the answer is negative for at least 90% of the people I know.

Nobody trusts the government. Governments could easily be the most hated entities. But wait until the last remnant of it is gone; it must be hell. And then a new government necessarily arises. That is why I am still convinced of the basic tenets of the social contract theory.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Well, does this count?

These attacks weren't prevented by data obtained via mass surveillance, but rather by focused and targeted monitoring of suspect individuals. In fact, the two attacks mentioned in the first paragraph - the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber - were prevented by the other passengers on the plane, not via intelligence data at all.

Certain individuals who are monitored under reasonable suspicion cannot just easily get away by saying their lives are private.

I am not saying the government shouldn't watch certain individuals. If someone is a member of ISIS, by all means keep them under surveillance. What I am firmly against is blanket mass surveillance of the entire population.