I think what bugs me most is that I've yet to see convincing evidence that any of these surveillance systems even help prevent such things as child abuse and terrorism. There's even pretty good evidence that these systems enable those things. We like to think child abuse happens from strangers, but usually it happens from someone the child knows, and often a relative. How many parents monitor their child's every move? For short term rewards you have ensured that you fail as a parent: teaching your child to be dependent and ensuring they are unable navigate the dangers and complexities of the world without you. The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions and I completely understand the desire, but sometimes the kid has to burn their hand on the stove (hopefully only a little).

In addition to this, it seems that when we do use these tools to go after people that we end up just going after the low hanging fruit. It's the same reason the drug war has been a failure. Instead of going after manufacturers and distributors we go after users. It's easier and we create incentivize structures and metrics that make these the best path to optimization. I am absolutely okay with introducing a little friction. I'm far less concerned with someone looking at child abuse as I am about the persons creating and distributing it. Both are bad but clearly one is much worse and should be prioritized. If the worse group isn't prioritized then it isn't security, it is theater.