I think you're assuming once again that there can't be some protection without sacrificing our privacy and Constitutional rights, while also ignoring the potential threat our own governments pose to our security.
As Edward Snowden puts it, we have created the possibility of a "turn-key tyranny." You may trust your government now, but you're always only one election cycle away from a potential authoritarian state who will use their new-found powers for malevolent purposes now that all of the safeguards have been removed. It's really not all that far-fetched.
It's not about technology vs no technology. It's about how that technology is used and who is being targeted by it.
That's purely subjective. To you, having government surveillance of your home might seem extreme, but other people might see it as necessary to catching all evildoers. In fact, some people would probably get off on knowing they were being watched while having sex.
And this, too, is not very far-fetched. The technology is out there for not only the government, but for anyone to hack your phone and gain access to its cameras, microphone, contacts, and to track your whereabouts. They don't need to install surveillance cameras in every household. People already willingly carry them around with them everywhere they go.
As I asked earlier in the thread, where do you draw the line? If those sorts of extreme measures would assist the government and law enforcement in stopping terrorism and catching all the bad guys, should it be done? Why or why not?
