While I agree with you on all other points you mentioned, it's pretty clear to me that the voting public are _perfectly_ okay with the authority of both private and public surveillance, so long as it satisfies one or more of the following criteria:
* Reduces, or is thought to reduce, the cost of credit to the individual concerned. ("I'm okay with it, if it means I can trivially get access to credit because my credit score is good.")
* Prevents, or is thought to prevent, the risk of terrorist action or harm to children.
* Is limited to "others" (poor people, immigrants, other races, etc.).
Erm, what do you mean "we"? ;)
While I agree with you on all other points you mentioned, it's pretty clear to me that the voting public are _perfectly_ okay with the authority of both private and public surveillance, so long as it satisfies one or more of the following criteria:
* Reduces, or is thought to reduce, the cost of credit to the individual concerned. ("I'm okay with it, if it means I can trivially get access to credit because my credit score is good.")
* Prevents, or is thought to prevent, the risk of terrorist action or harm to children.
* Is limited to "others" (poor people, immigrants, other races, etc.).