This assumes surveillance prevents crime, or even that crime is worth preventing if surveillance is the cost.

In terms of everyday threats to my life, billionaires are a bigger one than criminals.

People are less likely to commit crimes if they know the state has the tools to identify and prosecute them. Surveillance provides that capability, and reducing it makes solving and deterring crime much harder.

The cost is manageable as long as it's used for the right reasons and that the data is kept secure. The benefits of deterring violence outweigh those risks.

Billionaires may be a bigger threat but criminals are a threat nonetheless.