Well, the question is: where is the actual harm?

If the case is that the movements of people are plainly observable, but that observing them advances the ability of an organizing like CBP to victimize them, then it seems to me that the logical conclusion is to abolish CBP. Which I think is actually a far more logical position and also a far more popular one among Americans, though many are now afraid to say it out loud.

> It's sort of like saying "what, so I can't assemble a simple contraption of metal and explosive powder, and use it as I see fit?" to elide the fact that what you're actually talking about is shooting a gun.

Shooting? Or building? Of course you have a right to fabricate a gun in your own home. Is this in dispute (at least, in the USA)? Equally obvious, you do not have a right to discharge it in a way that endangers others.

I mean, I am not your enemy with regard to abolishing CBP. But the harms go beyond that. There are many studies that show how being surveilled can affect our behavior and negatively impact our mental health.

With regard to guns, restrictions abound on how you can use them (even in the privacy of your own home) — you need a license to carry them in public, you must lock them up around children, etc. Even though you might believe in some sort of "right to generalized mechanics", in practice most people believe your rights should actually be strictly limited.

First of all, in much of the US, you don't need a license to carry a gun in public. I'm not saying that's good or bad - I don't love it, but it's the current state of things.

But... is there a right to generalized mechanics in the same sense as general computing? General computing is the right to think - is your right to think limited to what your brain is capable of right now? Is it OK to exercise to increase your capacity? Is it OK to take supplements and drugs for this purpose? Is it OK to offload some thinking to a device you own?

Of course. These are fundamental, bedrock needs of a free information age society. You can think _anything_ you want. Thoughts, perhaps by definition, don't harm or imperil others.

But can you arbitrarily craft any machine you want? I mean, no. Like the right to your thoughts, you can craft what you like as long as it doesn't harm or imperil others. Unlike thoughts, some machines do certainly do this.

We have long had a legal and philosophical distinction between arms and ordnance for this reason. We recognize that the right to bear arms create a decentralization of the capacity for violence. But the right to bear ordnance does not. Also, in practical terms, manufacturing ordnance in secret is often difficult (and in fact, it is relieving to know how difficult it is to make nuclear weapons in secret - so much so that it seems to be _less_ possible with each passing year - in part due to the proliferation of eyes/cameras!).

So yeah, I think you can have totally philosophically and legally consistent limits on manufacturing without also having to limit thought / computation / perception.

In much of the US, you can't do the "general computing" you're describing either. Many states don't allow you to record audio without the consent of all parties, for example. You can't record or even possess child sexual abuse material. So it turns out the right you're talking about doesn't actually exist.

You're spending a lot of effort and well made points arguing against a person who isn't trying to see where you're coming from. Their take is pure libertarianism where a concept of freedom outclasses any real consequences. Like most of these pure-freedom arguments the whole thing pivots on a carefully contorted definition of "harm" - your clear examples of harm being discussed apparently don't count and there isn't a good faith conversation about why, they are just being hand waved away.

I think your attention is better spent on other commenters.

I'm not sure what I can do to recognize and steelman this position. There is no way to justify telling someone far away that they aren't allowed to capture photons which have bounced off of your skin that doesn't amount to a position of maximum egotism.

A person's existence does not entitle them to control and authority over every particle that interacts with them.

I'm allowed to see you. If you are in a place where I can see (ie, in public), then I can see you without even telling you I can see you. If I can see you - regardless of whether the technology I use is the result of biological evolution or electronic innovation - and you never even realize you've been seen, then by definition I have not harmed you with that act.

So, let's identify the _actual_ acts of harm. Trying to limit what CBP is allowed to see - when we can't even verify what they've seen - is not a path to relief from their tyranny.

I don't think that's hand-wavy. I think it's consistent. And unafraid to speak truth to power.

If you think you can summarize what I'm missing, I'd love to hear it.