Actually it reveals a twist in those in favour of surveillance . What they do they falsely accuse you of 'hiding' while you simply naturally expected not to be

Actually it reveals a twist in those in favour of surveillance . What they do they falsely accuse you of 'hiding' while you simply naturally expected not to be invaded. They invade you and then they they kind of ask you what is the problem? you have something to hide? And some people say : Oh, we have nothing to hide. But the problem is the fact of invasion, not wether they have to hide something or not. It's like someone invades your territory or takes your stuff and you say, oh, i don't really need those. It's not the problem wether you need those or not. The problem is that you can't decide about it anymore, you right to decide was taken away. In case of property you loose right to private property. In case of free speech you loose your right for free speech. In case of privacy you loose your right choose not to be watched. You loose ability to decide to be private if you wish. That is the problem.