I can't help but hark back to a thread I saw on r/austin once. We have a pretty big problem with bikers getting killed in hit and runs by drunks on late weekends.

The anti-surveillance argument went like this: "These bikers know the risks of biking at night on the weekend, and maybe they should stop doing it."

The pro-surveillance argument was: "Let's use existing data sets and patterns to identify the most dangerous intersections in downtown Austin, where this most frequently happens, and stick some cameras at license plate angles."

The anti-surveillance counterargument was: "It won't stop there."

Bikers were dying in the present tense, and civil liberties were being threatened in the future tense. Everywhere I encounter the surveillance discussion, that's where it goes. Every time. Present safety weighed against the threat against future privacy*. Now, I agree with you. Our civil liberties are what make America a good place to live; they're our national treasure without a doubt. But "privacy" and "liberty" are dangerous catch-all rebuttals that grab attention and make headlines. It doesn't, for example, make sense to restrict your friends' flight abilities. It does, however, make sense to use cameras to stop hit and run car accidents. Unfortunately, the same principle is argued in both cases, with detrimental effects in the long term to both.

*I'm not sure it's possible to objectively make this call.