Raw LLM Responses

_"Companies should be required to gather consent by all parties to scan..."_ "Required" by *who?* The average person's first problem here is that they wish too much on how they feel the world _should_ be instead of acting on how the world _operates._ Their second problem is that, even when new policy is made, the built-in loopholes, rollbacks or amendments 12 months later, etc. nullify any victories perceived by the general public, often without their knowledge, because people focus too much on singular legislative acts rather than actual countermeasures, structures, and social systems, so they "win" one battle while the other 9,999 infringing phenomena go unnoticed and unsettled. The worst fact of the matter about people simply relying on government "requiring" *surveillance state partners* to _do_ anything against their (the state's) own interests is that people are so childish and civically illiterate they fail to anticipate the most likely outcome because they do not recognize that, if an action or thing is within the interest of someone told to act _against_ his or her own interest to satiate those who cannot hold him or her directly accountable, then the MOST LOGICAL outcome IS for the person engage said interest. You're 5 years old and when your dad tells you not to take from the cookie jar without permission, you don't, because avoiding painful consequences is your top interest. But you're 15, you're now 6'5" and towering over your tiny 5'7" father and he threatens you against the same action: your response is, "Or what?", because he has no real recourse for you taking as many cookies as you please. That's you --- the taxpayer: no real agency. You cannot and won't tax strike (because you're employed, not self-sufficient/independent); the state has the police and all centralized necessities; and you're too busy with paychecks & living life to really care about taking any proaction. It's a chihuahua barking at a sky-scraping megalithic beast unaware of its existence. Why would the government --- of all entities --- against its own highest interest, ban, restrict, or interfere with potential, novel surveillance state partners, just to make taxpayers happy? This is _not_ to say that laws are stupid because people might break them, but rather, relying on a piece of paper's power alone or even private-sector/civil suits to mitigate or change the issue of surveillance capitalism is backward thinking without addressing civil actions, private-sector solutions, local countermeasures, alternate economic solutions (e.g., products that outcompete Ring, Amazon, etc.'s offerings), grassroots door-to-door mobilization efforts (schools, college campuses, churches, sports shows, educational programs, TikTok, etc. --- getting youth involved and aware, riling up older voters, etc.). The government's largely unconcerned with taxpayer plights UNLESS those plights _also_ interfere with either (1) its revenues or (2) its control. Therefore, the first priority should not be depending on the state to effectively violate its own interests "requiring" its potential partners to de-power and defang themselves; the first priority should revolve around ascertaining the *"Or what?"* from my analogy, both for the surveillance firms and their client: the state. In other words, what are you going to DO about it? There need to be consequences, at different levels, across sectors, as well as alternative options, severe pressure, and so much noise from the general public it hinges on the edge of what some may consider aggression --- without breaking the law. Doing so lawfully and staying in honor matters long-term. This problem cannot be unexisted away with the stroke of a simple pen into law. We are transitioning into this new technoentralized era of banking, commerce, communication, and consumerism, and where gold, oil, and land used to define the old, previous era of capitalism (which is not bad but needs to be regulated reasonably), data, intelligence systems, and civilian control mechanisms are the new gold-oil-land. We need to start thinking like rational civilians, not stupid protestors living in fantasyland. As colossal as the government has grown, the gov't is still like a child or wild animal: it knows only what it wants, and it must often be disciplined or forced into considering/prioritizing the needs of others --- its constituents. Strongly-worded letters, voting, protests, lone bills, and other childish nonsense *will not achieve what the citizenry of this republic demand happen without teeth.*