Further, the eternal problem with that argument supporting invasive surveillance, "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?", is who, under this regime, will be defining the word "wrong"? Will it be "wrong" when I access porn? Will it be "wrong" when I linger over certain portions of my own anatomy when in the morning shower? Will it be "wrong" when I check a book out of the library that the "Wrong-chooser" disapproves of? And once this information is gathered, what precisely becomes of it? Who has access to it? What will they use it for? The definition of "wrong" becomes increasingly broad at that point. As Mr. Schneier points out, it isn't "wrong" to go to the bathroom or make love, but if it's on YouTube, it could fuck up your reputation, community standing, political career pretty thoroughly without being, in any legal or ethical sense, "wrong".
And once this information is gathered, what precisely becomes of it? Who has access to it? What will they use it for? The definition of "wrong" becomes increasingly broad at that point. As Mr. Schneier points out, it isn't "wrong" to go to the bathroom or make love, but if it's on YouTube, it could fuck up your reputation, community standing, political career pretty thoroughly without being, in any legal or ethical sense, "wrong".