BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Flogging will be over-utilised, rehabilitation will be under-utilised

There is political capital to be gained from adopting a hard line stance on law and order issues, but there is also political capital to be gained from showing that a particular policy has had a positive effect on reoffending. The Pew Foundation report cited above has also determined that some 90% of US voters were in favour of reducing the length of prison sentences and "strengthening" probation and parole systems1.   The opposition assumes that politicians are interested only in cheap, hollow, short term solutions to problem. However, a large number of policy makers are genuinely public spirited, with a sincere interest in solving long-standing social problems. The adversarial nature of politics tends to prevent politicians from seeking elaborate or novel solutions to such issues. Spending money on intangible rehabilitation programmes will always provoke more criticism than spending money on training more police officers. The resolution allows politicians to engage with the novel solution to criminality offered by rehabilitation while at the same time meeting a general demand for criminals to be visibly and strictly punished for their actions. There will be a cynical minority of politicians who will see the dramatic nature of flogging as an opportunity to disguise cuts to reform programmes. Equally, there will be others who will use corporal sentences as an opportunity to address and resolve the politically intractable problem of criminal deviance. 1 "Tackling Recidivism: They All Come Home", The Economist, 20 April 2011, improve this
Abuse of information and power by intelligence agencies

Even when the government does not intend harm there are still cases where direct harms can occur as a result of surveillance. The most worrying are where the state abuses the information it holds. Abuse of power and of the information held by government is perhaps the main reason why it is difficult to trust in intelligence agencies. In one historical example from the 1950s FBI agents interviewed a Brooklyn liquor importer for repeating a rumor that the FBI Director J Edgar Hoover might be a “queer”. This clearly necessitated a reminder through questioning that Hoover’s “personal conduct is beyond reproach,” leading to the man quickly agreeing that “he thinks Mr. Hoover has done a wonderful job.”[1] Did this have anything to do with national security? No. Was it an abuse of power and surveillance? Yes. So far as we are aware the intelligence agencies don’t do things quite like this anymore but the revelations like PRISM, or the waterboarding a decade ago, show they are still happy to abuse their position from time to time. This is hardly a good way to build trust. [1] Gage, Beverly, ‘It’s Not About Your Cat Photos’, Slate, 10 June 2013, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/06/nsa_prism_program_can_we_trust_the_government_with_our_secrets_no.html
Loss of Privacy

It is wrong to state that we only have anything to ‘fear’ if we have done something wrong; a great many people want to keep things private where what they have done is morally perfectly right and justifiable. It is perfectly justified for a married couple to want to keep a video of them having sex private – even if it is sent from one partner to the other by email, or for someone to keep his/her sexual orientation secret even if they have told someone about it.[1] If we want such information to be kept private does the state have any business picking that information up from our emails? It may not go any further than the intelligence agency, it is possible no one there will look at it but it is still an invasion of privacy. [1] Phillipson, Gavin, ‘Q&A: The right to privacy’, BBC Religion, 14 June 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/22887499
You are not going to be arrested because the government has access to your communications

There have been wrongful arrests during the war against terror. Riwaan Sabir was wrongfully arrested under the terrorism act in 2008 for downloading an al-Qaida training manual despite the manual having been downloaded from a US government website and been for his master’s degree at the University of Nottingham.[1] Since the offence was online it is certainly possible that information from spying was a part of the cause for the arrest. It is true that we probably have less cause for concern when it is foreign governments doing the spying but this could still have consequences such as being denied entry if you wish to travel to or through the country. [1] Townsend, Mark, ‘Police ‘made up’ evidence against Muslim student’, The Guardian, 14 July 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jul/14/police-evidence-muslim-student-rizwaan-sabir
No one will ever actually look at the information

Clearly if no one ever actually looked at any information provided by surveillance then there would be no point in conducting it. Even if it were true that no one looks at any of the data being watched is still an intrusion that affects behaviour. It will affect decisions that are perfectly lawful because there will always be the slight worry that someone who you don’t want to have that information because they will think differently of you will obtain it. When the information is out of your hands you can no longer be certain who will obtain it.[1] Since people have been arrested for the information that has been conducted, clearly sometimes the information is checked and used. [1] Moore, Mica, and Stein, Bennett, ‘The Chilling Effects of License-Plate Location Tracking’, American Civil Liberties Union, 23 July 2013, http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-security/chilling-effects-license-plate-location-tracking
Lack of trust

The intelligence agencies are not violating any right to privacy if they are not actually looking at the content of any emails, even less so as they in almost all cases won’t even be looking at the metadata. It is not possible for intelligence agencies to be asking the people before engaging in every surveillance policy as even knowing the broad outlines of what the surveillance involves could allow the targets of that surveillance to avoid that surveillance. While individual citizens are not asked this is where the people’s representatives should be trusted, it is ministers and members of parliament that allow surveillance and hold the agencies to account.
The use of meta data causes unintentional harm

Metadata and data-mining are not new they are simply becoming more frequent, and more accurate as a result of more information. In the past there have been other ways of collecting data; tax records, voter registration, reverse telephone directories.[1] At the same time government and the intelligence agencies are not even those who make most use of this, there are whole private companies devoted to sifting this data.[2] There is little reason why we should particularly worry about this being done by intelligence agencies. [1] Gomez, David, ‘Hoovered’, Foreign Policy, 11 June 2013, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/11/fbi_hoover_nsa_prism_verizon_metadata [2] See the debatabase debate ‘This House would not allow companies to collect/sell the personal data of their clients’.
You are not going to be arrested because the government has access to your communications

Clearly much of the time you really do have nothing to worry about when it comes to intelligence agencies having information about you. People are not regularly arrested without just cause and we have little evidence that democratic governments use this information to put pressure on their citizens. There have been no known cases of this happening since the start of the war on terror.[1] When it comes to foreign governments this is even less of a cause for concern; while your own government might be interested in various aspects of your life to help it with the services it provides foreign governments only have one motivation; their own national security. If you are not a threat to that national security the chances of them ever taking any action against you are essentially nonexistent. [1] Posner, Eric, ‘I Don’t See a Problem Here’, The New York Times Room for Debate, 10 June 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/09/is-the-nsa-surveillance-threat-real-or-imagined
No one will ever actually look at the information

If the concern is privacy then there really should be little concern at all because there is safety in numbers. The NSA and other intelligence services don’t have the time or motivation to be tracking down all of our foibles.[1] If the intelligence agencies are watching everyone then they clearly do not have the personnel to be watching the actual communications. Instead certain things or patterns will raise alarm bells and a tiny number will be investigated more closely. [1] Walt, Stephen M., ‘The real threat behind the NSA surveillance programs’, Foreign Policy, 10 June 2013, http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/10/what_me_worry_the_real_threat_behind_the_nsa
Lack of trust

The problem is that when it comes to privacy it is not really our personal physical security that we are worried about. Part of the problem is that we value our right to a private life and that we should have control over that to the extent of being able to decide how much information others know about us. To a large extent this is an issue of trust; we (sometimes wrongly) trust our friends and others with information about us. We often trust faceless entities; companies and governments too though usually to less of an extent. But a lot of that trust is as a result of their willingness to tell us what they know about us, to provide information in return, or to provide methods for us to restrict what they know. In cases like this that trust has not been earned; we were not asked, and not obviously given anything back, and there seems little change of us changing the terms of the relationship.
The use of meta data causes unintentional harm

The other possible harm is unintentional. The amount of data involved is huge and too much even for a vast organization like the NSA to actually physically look at. Instead it uses data mining. This is why the NSA wants data that may seem useless to others. The records of which phone numbers are phoning who, as the NSA was obtaining of Verizon, might seem useless but can tell them who you are contacting, and how much contact time they have. In turn they could look at who your contacts have been talking to and if it turns out that several of them talk regularly to suspected terrorists then even if you are innocent a finger of suspicion might be pointed. There has even been a study showing that individuals can be identified from just the time of call and nearest cell phone tower after just four calls.[1] PRISM gives the NSA even more ‘useless’ data to play with. The results of this data mining may usually be accurate but will not always be so and the result of being flagged like this can be problematic for individuals. It may mean additional airport security, having problems getting a visa,[2] or in the worst case finding its way onto a no fly list. [1] De Montjoye, Yves-Alexandre, et al., ‘Unique in the Crowd: The privacy bounds of human mobility’, Scientific Reports, 3, 25 March 2013, http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130325/srep01376/full/srep01376.html [2] Brown, Ian, ‘Yes, NSA surveillance should worry the law-abiding’, guardian.co.uk, 10 June 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/10/nsa-snooping-law-abiding
There are safeguards to prevent misuse

In the UK case this is not all it appears. The Intelligence Services Commissioner is comparatively toothless, and both it and the Interception of Communications Commissioner are immensely understaffed for monitoring all UK intelligence agencies. Some experts such as Professor Peter Sommer have even suggested “I am not sure that ministers or the ISC would know what questions to ask.”[1] Moreover this is trusting that ministers have the best interests of the people at heart, in the case of this conservative government which seems perfectly happy to introduce bills that erode freedoms such as the ‘snoopers charter’ this seems unlikely. [1] Hopkins, Nick, ‘William Hague on spying scandal: what he said … and what he didn't say’, guardian.co.uk, 10 June 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/10/william-hague-spying-scandal-nsa-statement
A threat to democracy

Far from threatening democracy the intelligence agencies are using this information to protect democracy from terrorists who wish to overthrow the whole concept of democratic governance. Intelligence agencies are clearly under civilian control and have several layers of oversight to ensure that this kind of misuse does not take place. In the United States this means there is oversight from Congress and in the UK from Parliament. There is also judicial oversight in the form of the Interception of Communications Commissioner and Intelligence Services Commissioner in the UK[1] and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in the US.[2] [1] ‘Judicial Oversight’, Security Service MI5, https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/about-us/how-mi5-is-governed/oversight/judicial-oversight.html [2] ‘Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’, Federal Judicial Center, http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/courts_special_fisc.html
Abuse of information and power by intelligence agencies

The circumstances in the cold war were clearly different to today so this kind of abuse of power would be unlikely to happen. More broadly yes there is the potential for abuse in much the same way that there are people in banks who could steal large quantities of other people’s money. That there is a potential opportunity does not mean it is ever used. Abuse can never be totally avoided but if abuse is a concern then whether or not there is a program of surveillance is not the highest concern. Even if there were not wide ranging surveillance problems those in intelligence looking to abuse their position would be able to obtain the information because they have the technology to do so.
There is no physical risk

In terms of physical risk it is almost certainly true that you have nothing to fear from government having loads of information. With the exception perhaps of the Russian FSB and despite the James Bond films intelligence agencies in democracies are not in the habit of bumping people off this mortal coil. In this sense it does not matter at all what information the intelligence services have on you; no matter how naughty you may have been it is not going to be worth some kind of physical retaliation. Essentially the argument here is that it does no harm, and even does some good, so why should it not continue?
There are safeguards to prevent misuse

In democracies there are numerous safeguards and levels of oversight to prevent abuse. In the UK for example there is a “strong framework of democratic accountability and oversight”. Agencies are required “to seek authorisation for their operations from a Secretary of State, normally the Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary.” The Secretary is given legal advice and comments from civil servants. Once the Secretary has given assent they are “subject to independent review by an Intelligence Services Commissioner and an Interception of Communications Commissioner… to ensure that they are fully compliant with the law”.[1] [1] Hague, William, ‘Prism statement in full’, politics.co.uk, 10 June 2013, http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2013/06/10/william-hague-prism-statement-in-full
A threat to democracy

Yes the NSA is unlikely to look at individual’s personal information if the person in question is nobody of interest yet there are people who may be of interest to the state who are essentially innocent of anything except annoying the state. The ability for almost anyone in the intelligence apparatus to look up personal information has to worry anyone who might otherwise dissent, investigate the government, or turn whistleblower. Intelligence officials can hold the information as a weapon to ensure compliance and ruin careers if they don’t get their way.[1] This has happened before. In the US when diplomat Joseph C. Wilson published about the manipulation of intelligence on uranium from Niger being used as part of the justification for the invasion of Iraq his wife had her cover blown and career destroyed by people within the Department of Defense.[2] When we know that the Obama administration has been more determined than ever to prevent leaks and prosecute perpetrators can it really be said there is no damage to democracy if these courageous people are not coming forward? [1] Walt, Stephen M., ‘The real threat behind the NSA surveillance programs’, Foreign Policy, 10 June 2013, http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/10/what_me_worry_the_real_threat_behind_the_nsa [2] Wilson, Joseph C., ‘What I Didn’t Find in Africa’, The New York Times, 6 July 2003, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/what-i-didn-t-find-in-africa.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm Lewis, Neil A., ‘Source of C.I.A. Leak Said to Admit Role’, The New York Times, 30 August 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/washington/30armitage.html?_r=0
Consumers tend to feel alienated by spreading of their personal information for profit

People experiencing the use of their personal details by companies have largely been found to see the process as extremely invasive and unsettling. Many have felt violated by the exploitation of their personal lives to market them products, often from people to whom they never consented to hand over information. This feeling has been demonstrated through significant public outcry and backlash, as well as empirical results showing these attitudes becoming more and more widespread, particularly in the case of online targeted advertising, which is the most well-known use of personal information. The best example of such backlash is the result of Amazon.com’s “dynamic pricing” system, in which the company varied its offerings and pricings to customers based on information gathered about them from prior uses. The result was a severe backlash that cost Amazon business until it ended the policy.[1] This has led to a blunting of the desired outcome of such marketers who experience declines in uptake rather than increased and more efficient reach of marketing. Furthermore, the targeted marketing that arises from these forms of information storage and sale can tend toward stereotypes, using programmes that favour broad brushstrokes in their marketing, resulting in stereotyped services on the basis of apparent race and gender. When this happens it is all the more alienating. [1] Taylor, C., “Private Demands and Demands For Privacy: Dynamic Pricing and the Market for Customer Information”, Duke University, September 2002, http://public.econ.duke.edu/Papers/Other/Taylor/private.pdf p.1
Data breaches can result in huge amounts of personal data falling into unscrupulous hands

The data collected and sold by companies is not safe. Servers with even the most sophisticated security systems are susceptible to hackers and other miscreants seeking to exploit the personal data of unsuspecting customers. Identity theft is a ubiquitous threat in the Information Age, one that increases every year as the arms race between data protection designers and invaders rages on. Data breaches have been rapidly increasing[1] and although the total number declined from 412 million exposed records in 2011 to 267 million in 2012 this has increasingly been due to hacking rather than simple negligence.[2] The result of these breaches is huge costs to individuals who have their identities and also to firms that appear to be unsafe. As individuals see companies as being uncaring of their information they tend to punish them in the market.[3] There is no opt-in because the individual has no means of seeing to whom the data is sold, and how secure their servers might be, putting them doubly at risk. Firms are better off not playing with fire and keeping data that could have huge potential costs to them if it is lost, and individuals are better off not having their information disseminated across cyberspace without any guarantee of its safety. [1] Federal Trade Commission. “Privacy online: Fair information practices in the electronic marketplace: A report to Congress. Technical report, Federal Trade Commission”. May 2000. http://www.ftc.gov/reports/privacy2000/privacy2000.pdf [2] Risk Based Security, “Historically, Over 1.2 Billion Records Exposed According to Risk Based Security, Inc.” Risk Based Security, 22 February 2012, http://www.riskbasedsecurity.com/2012/02/historically-over-1-2-billion-records-exposed-according-to-risk-based-security-inc/ Risk Based Security, “2012 Sets New Record for Reported Data Breaches”, PR Newswire, 14 February 2013, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/2012-sets-new-record-for-reported-data-breaches-191272781.html [3] Acquisti, A. “The Economics of Personal Data and the Economics of Privacy”. OECD. 2010, http://www.oecd.org/sti/interneteconomy/46968784.pdf
The sale of personal data makes for better advertising that benefits consumers

By targeting demographics and personal profiles by way of acquiring and utilizing personal data, businesses are able to put forward their services in a more targeted fashion in order to reach their target markets and to more effectively understand the broader market more generally. The limited budgets that constrain all companies has traditionally forced producers in the mass market to advertise to broad demographics and majority markets, resulting in a relative dearth of niche markets and breadth of services available in the mass market. Utilizing personal data effectively allows firms to enrich the lives of all consumers by expanding the range of marketable products and the furnishing of services to more eclectic tastes.[1] The vast numbers of websites and services proliferating online makes it much harder for people to find what they are looking for, but more importantly what they are not looking for but would want if they knew it existed. Data-mining allows for the channels of information to flow more effectively to consumers (Columbus, 2012). On the individual level companies are able to create individual profiles from information, so they can target them directly with things that might interest them. This strategy is used on Facebook, for example, users are shown ads that most fit their profiles giving them access to services they might not have ever found without the service. [1] Deighton, J. and J. Quelch, “Economic Value of the Advertising-Supported Internet Ecosystem”. IAB Report. 2009, http://www.iab.net/media/file/Economic-Value-Report.pdf