Discussions about surveillance almost always descend into considerations about personal privacy. On the one hand you have those who don't want their porn habit

Discussions about surveillance almost always descend into considerations about personal privacy. On the one hand you have those who don't want their porn habits on record, on the other you have those who doesn't care. This is missing the bigger point, which the title of the linked article alludes to, but the article itself doesn't delve into. For meaningful political opposition to be possible in a democracy, organizations and individuals in those organizations must have some level of privacy. Considering the modern history of political organization and opposition and its suppression in the US, it seems to me that the incumbent power structures were already far too powerful even before the introduction of ubiquitous surveillance.