The argument is not that surveillance is evil or causes totalitarianism, the argument is that given a legal system wherein anything one does can be interpreted as a crime and a panopticon, the laws will be selectively applied to individuals who have personal conflicts with government agents or ideological conflicts with the government itself; the extreme version of this being some future totalitarian government that has ideological conflicts with nearly all citizens.
It's a matter of the additional power granted to the government... in exchange for what? An insignificant decrease in the likelihood that I am killed by terrorists?
A very good argument, but definitely not what the other folks were talking about.
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
I think what you need to fight then is the absurd amount of laws on the books. I don't think we're close to the point you're describing. Sure cops overlook J-walking and driving 5 mph over the speed limit, but that's minor in the grand scheme of things. I think if the government found out ever law I'd broke... I'd probably have to pay a large amount of fines for all the stuff I've torrented, and maybe quite a few speeding tickets. But you've got to understand that if everyone that speeded and torrented was caught, the system of punishment would have to be completely different. The punishment - right or wrong - is scaled inversely to the chance that you will get caught. As an example: If they saw each time you went over 65 mph, you'd probably be dinged 5 bucks, not 100+.
In a sense it would make the system a lot more fair.
It's a matter of the additional power granted to the government... in exchange for what? An insignificant decrease in the likelihood that I am killed by terrorists?