I like how I agree with the author about pernicious creep of surveillance, but for opposite reasons, where if he provided the same arguments against it to somet

I like how I agree with the author about pernicious creep of surveillance, but for opposite reasons, where if he provided the same arguments against it to something else, I would be dismissive of them. It's as though the reason he's against the surveillance is because it strengthens neighbourhoods and the identity around them, presumably with his implied ideal being an atomized specimen of a group identity, who must amplify narrative to survive. Surveillance turns people into helpless targets for predators when the consequences of being caught defending yourselves are greater than giving predators what they are after, which rewards them, and they come back. Eventually what surveillance mainly does is empower a tiny minority of truly terrible people who for them the cameras are never on, or they don't care, and these are the most malicious and nasty people around.