I was writing a response to this, the point of which was going to be that there's a gradient with regard to the amount of respect shown (or not shown) to people

I was writing a response to this, the point of which was going to be that there's a gradient with regard to the amount of respect shown (or not shown) to people as they climb the social ladder, but at the same time, there are some forms of surveillance which by nature _can't_ be so selective in who's targeted. Now I'm not sure that's true. My argument was going to center around common places where surveillance happens - engagement tracking at grocery stores, license plate readers on traffic light cameras, and the like. It's hard to opt out of roads or grocery stores. But then I realized that even these reflect the gradient. Maybe big box stores like Walmart are deploying these technologies - are white-collar workers actually shopping there, or are they instead going to smaller, boutique-y shops who don't install them? Are traffic light cameras going into upper-class suburban settings, or are they first being deployed to major roads and arteries? So... I've more or less proved my initial thought wrong - this gradient does indeed persist, because people at higher rungs of the ladder are self-selecting for experiences which don't feature these kinds of surveillance (even if that is not their primary reason for doing so).