I think obviously so. There's a very simple way to illustrate as such. In particular much of the crime that affects us and surveillance attempts to stop is not

I think obviously so. There's a very simple way to illustrate as such. In particular much of the crime that affects us and surveillance attempts to stop is not particularly new. It's mostly people just killing and hurting each other in ways that are centuries old. Surveillance of society as a whole has increased on a very sharp exponential scale, yet there's been no clear causal connection to a decline in crime. If surveillance was useful, let alone necessary, to a society being made as safe as it could we would have expected to see a proportional decline in crime with some reasonably decent evidence of a causal link. But that is not present, at all. So we're really just submitting to surveillance and sacrificing ever greater swaths of personal privacy for no real gains.