The fundamental issue with all surveillance mechanisms is that it's the exact opposite of foundational legal principles like presumption of innocence. [1] If an

The fundamental issue with all surveillance mechanisms is that it's the exact opposite of foundational legal principles like presumption of innocence. [1] If anyone or everyone could be guilty of something if only they were caught in the act, and if judges accept such evidence as prime and override any suspicions that these are beyond reasonable doubt and ignore the fact that these could have error rates or be completely falsified, [2] then law enforcement and prosecution wouldn't have to work hard. It's questionable if law enforcement really works hard in any country and does what it's expected to by the common people; it seems to be a continuous power game (and power grab) in many places where law enforcement is becoming more and more militarized. Biometric and behavioral recognition, profiling and tracking will turn all democracies into namesakes and into dictatorships where people will always self-censor because they don't want to get into any trouble. There is a bigger chance that more (not all) activists will be marginalized and silenced through different means. That would be a tragedy for everyone. "Nothing to hide" would seem like a cruel joke that thoughtless people of the past played on the future. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence [2]: Even routine evidence collected and processed today could have error rates or be falsified, but there seem to be trends where technology is perceived as being infallible, and is trusted completely on first sight.