The just alternative is that the State pays for the programs it deems necessary to force on people for the good of society. It's not a question of funding: inca

The just alternative is that the State pays for the programs it deems necessary to force on people for the good of society. It's not a question of funding: incarceration is at least an order of magnitude more expensive than surveillance. If you think that large punitive fines are a useful disincentive to crime (whether that's true or not depends on several factors, but for people living paycheck to paycheck and in deep debt, probably not), fine, argue that. But that's a separate issue. So far as I can tell, there's no policy argument for making people for their own surveillance, if what you're concerned about is improving social outcomes.