Narj;30485247 said:
[..]
Non-targeted interception means we are all actually less safe because time will be wasted on false positives or following up on people like me who are deliberately obfuscating their innocent online activities as a matter of principle.
There are quite a lot of us. I'm using a VPN now, for example. It's only a few quid a month if you buy a couple of years at a time and it passes leak tests since I enabled a DNS restriction that was labelled as being only needed in Win10. I'm using Win7, so it seems that it's no longer only Win10. Essentially, DNS requests were sent every possible way and not only through the VPN. Worth testing for that with leak sites. The only drawback is a slight delay in connection to websites and I think that's a configuration issue with my firewall (which is hardly configurable at all, so I should get a better one).
I don't really care if MI6 or some other spy agency monitors my internet use
if they are investigating something. My objection is to blanket surveillance because, as you point out, it means we're all less safe. Blanket surveillance is useful for internal suppression, not protection against threats.