alt Hacker NewsThe Nazis relied heavily on IBM technology for national census data (to identify jews), military logistics, ghetto statistics, train traffic management, and concentration camp capacity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
I fully agree with your base perspective, that the main focus should be on preventing authoritarians from coming to power in the first place.
I also agree with your final point, that the government doesn't need tech to lean on a person.
We disagree in the middle, on how tech that makes evil orders of magnitude easier might be a contributing factor and might enable the government to lean on many more people than it would otherwise.
My comment was made knowing and understanding the Nazis use of tech. But it's an argument of efficiency and efficiency matters less and less when dealing with the state due to their relative resource and power imbalance compared to individuals. Tech might have sped up the Nazi death machine, but the desire and intent for murder is all that matters in the long run. Their efficiency was of note really only because their time in power was relatively brief. If they were like some other authoritarian regimes and remained in power for decades, they likely would have eventually racked up the same death toll with or without the tech.
We also never seem to accept this answer for other forms of tech. Should we ban encryption because it makes it easier for terrorists to hide? Should your phone run ever photo you take through a CSAM database to catch preditors? Should we ban 3d printers because someone might print gun parts? For some reason we understand that people motivated enough to commit crimes will find a way to do it. This is much truer when it comes to the actions of the state than it is for individuals. I'm never going to learn to smith parts for a gun, but I could figure out 3d printing pretty easily. If the state wants me dead or in jail, I don't think the Flock cameras are that meaningful.