The risk issue is broad. The first mistake that one could make here—I am not saying that this is your case—and that should be prevented, would be to read things in light of a single criterion. We are not in a situation where everything is black and white. The issue is to look at several criteria and ask how much risk there is.
There may be risks in not using massive data, but we also have to take into account the fact that we are dealing with a totalitarian mechanism that consists in controlling people to such an extent and with such efficiency that we even make them susceptible to manipulation.
The risk is to trivialize surveillance and make it a management technique that we have reduced to an almost technical modality, without gravity. This is what we have been doing for the last two years because of the emergency situation. In fact, we renew the health emergency from 10 days to 10 days, in discrete periods, without justification.
There will come a time when we will extend the scope of these so-called emergency measures to citizens who will be deprived of their constitutional rights. We cannot treat lightly the fact that we can have information about people on the grounds, for example, that they have not been vaccinated—which is a constitutional right, by the way—or that they are participating in demonstrations, which also are constitutionally protected, in principle.
Therefore, the perceived risk is to generate a mechanism that, in the name of technical management, allows for an unconstitutional attitude, measures and processes.