> I think it is the point: there is a balance between freedom and safety.

Sometimes. But freedom and security are not always opposed.

It’s possible to trade freedom for security but it’s also possible that freedom creates security. Both can be true at the same time. Surveillance, not security, is what opposes freedom. Surveillance simply trades one form of insecurity for another at the cost of freedom.

> For example, it is illegal to carry a loaded handgun onto a plane. Most people would agree that is an acceptable trade of freedom for safety.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

2A seems to make the case that the freedom to bear arms creates security. Given how history played out it’s hard to argue against. I’m not arguing we should be able to take guns on planes but 2A is an example of freedom creating security.

How about just general privacy? I mean do you really want someone / the government to be able to track everywhere you go?

- Going to your girlfriends place while the wife is at work

- Visiting a naughty shop

- Going into various companies for interviews while employed

With mass surveillance there is the risk of mass data leak. Would you be comfortable with a camera following you around at all times when you're in public? I wouldn't be.

The right to privacy, to not let the government have a master record of everywhere you've ever been and everything you've ever said just in case they decide to someday revoke free speech and due process, or decide it doesn't apply. Lately we have plenty of examples of how quickly that can happen.

You were recorded smoking marijuana, an illegal drug at the federal level.

You were recorded walking into an abortion clinic, although face recognition identified as a resident of a state where abortion is illegal.