"Bostrom himself argued that we should seriously consider establishing a global, invasive surveillance system..." I read Bostrom's book on existential risk and

"Bostrom himself argued that we should seriously consider establishing a global, invasive surveillance system..." I read Bostrom's book on existential risk and that does not sound like something he would advocate. Looking over the cited paper, I think the conclusion the author reached is extremely simplified. Rather than point to existential risk as the most important thing in the world, Bostrom has said that the gravity of the consequences means that a very small portion of our resources would be well spent to address existential risk, similar to Musk's take on the importance of space exploration. I think the author is grossly mischaracterizing "Longtermists'" views and how important they think it is.