If the Feds thought I was building a bomb, they surveilled my email with a court order, found nothing and moved on, I could care less. It's when there's not pr

If the Feds thought I was building a bomb, they surveilled my email with a court order, found nothing and moved on, I could care less. It's when there's not process that's the problem. As far as 'accused', I'm not worried about that because I'm not building a bomb so there's no way they'd have evidence. They'd have to fabricate it, which is a whole other level of fraud. Again, a long as it's done rationally, then we'll be just fine. I suggest there are very, very few cases wherein people's live have been upended because of 'too much surveillance'. The 'no fly list' is one bad example, it's because we don't have ways to uniquely identify people, and there's no process for removal. So if you have the same name as a terrorist, you're out of luck. Or of you get on by accident - no process for saying 'hey, I'm a normal guy'. Again procedural failrues mostly. Or entrapment, or an accusation which turns out to be false that throws your life in a bind. But it's not that common, and usually the result of back decisions on the side of the Feds, not so much inherently bad nature of surveillance. One issue - and that is mass surveillance - LAPD has cameras to know where every license plate is going at all times ... that I don't like. They should not be able to record any licence plates unless there is 'cause' - for example. Same for facial recognition in NYC and London. I think we'll find the sweet spot on this.