I think there's a trust value to discontinuing such programs when no longer necessary. I know here, there was a lot of privacy concerns around this framework, and the possibility it was a backdoor into long-term tracking.
The most effective response to such concerns was to be as open and transparent as possible, and the discontinuation of such frameworks could be seen along the same lines - earning trust by not allowing scope creep to turn these into permanent programs.
Ultimately it's cost-benefit. We allowed the state to take steps we wouldn't usually allow, because at the time the benefit was worth the cost. If that benefit has significantly changed, it's worth re-evaluating whether it's still a cost we're still willing to pay.
I think there's a trust value to discontinuing such programs when no longer necessary. I know here, there was a lot of privacy concerns around this framework, and the possibility it was a backdoor into long-term tracking.
The most effective response to such concerns was to be as open and transparent as possible, and the discontinuation of such frameworks could be seen along the same lines - earning trust by not allowing scope creep to turn these into permanent programs.
Ultimately it's cost-benefit. We allowed the state to take steps we wouldn't usually allow, because at the time the benefit was worth the cost. If that benefit has significantly changed, it's worth re-evaluating whether it's still a cost we're still willing to pay.