The only interesting hypothetical I've heard in support of surveillance is when/if some armageddon level technology becomes cheap and easy to employ. If nuclear

The only interesting hypothetical I've heard in support of surveillance is when/if some armageddon level technology becomes cheap and easy to employ. If nuclear weapons, self-replicating nanobots, designer viruses didn't happen to require the resources of a wealthy state, then extremely invasive and automated surveillance may be the only thing that can protect us from random trolls wiping out the planet. The risk of surveillance abuse is still there, but would be weighed against the benefits.