If we take the matter simply from the immediate aspect

[Joywtseo421]

Allowing data from individuals not directly linked to a crime to be collected indiscriminately sets a dangerous precedent (where the victim is the investigator, the prosecutor, the judge, and the executioner all at once). This erodes privacy norms and opens the door to potential abuse.

International human rights standards, such as those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, provide that investigative measures must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Breaking the confidentiality of an indeterminate group of people violates this principle of proportionality.

In fact, would a new “status civitatis” be created, where a citizen will only be someone who unrestrictedly complies with the whims of the modern Suzerains or Dominus?
we would already have the risk of discrimination, where data collected indiscriminately can estonia phone number library be used for unfair profiling of individuals based on their online activities, places visited or searches carried out, even if there is no clear connection with any illicit activity.

When citizens feel that their basic rights are not protected by the state (which should be the foundation of its existence), this can lead to an erosion of trust in the justice system itself.

It is true that indiscriminate surveillance can change online behavior, where citizens may feel that free expression and the exchange of ideas, fundamental elements for a democratic (read: free) society, may not be working very well.

Another aspect that deserves attention is the existence of interest groups, including politically engaged entities and individuals, using the possible precedent for the practice of judicial harassment, simply seeking to suppress opposition or criticism.