I personally wouldn't have a problem with it. If a Govt recognises a benefit to the population, ie privacy, security and freedom, then I say Bravo Govt.
On what grounds would you personally object?
Neither did Amazon for a very long time - what is your point here?
well, you're right, it doesn't necessarily follow, but by the same measure:
Can you tell us what reading you have based this conclusion on - or is it an assumption?
I'm tempted to say Yes, but your wording is unclear. Do you mean does it demonstrate his motives are for the greater good, in which case No - but neither does it show they weren't. Surely if something is shown to be for the greater good (when done) then it doesn't matter if someone profits - does it?.
Could you point me to the potentially mind changing research you have done? - thanks
I don't think he claimed to be "sure" did he? I thought it was just his opinion. Can you explain what you base your own doubts on?
By acknowledging you have no actual information to go on ("no expert" ) and without stating what these questions are, are you not just casting aspersions?
I have to say that there seems to be a lot of the "Pot calling the kettle black here". You seem to say others are just giving opinion, rather than fact, yet seem to do the same. You say others are making assumptions, yet seem to do the same.
You also rightly question the assumption made of someone else's motivations, yet suggest you have reason to think otherwise - without providing these reasons - an assumption isn't it?
Nobody can know for sure what anybody else's motivation is, without being a mind reader that is. Assumptions should be avoided I think, in preference to making inferences from actual data/research.
There also isn't really anything wrong with people just stating their opinion, as long as it isn't claimed as fact.
Just my 2 penn'orth.....: .