[fauigerzigerk]

Absolutely, and I'm not a proponent of the surveillance state as some here seem to think.

My point is that law makers define what a crime is. The effectiveness of law enforcement doesn't change that fact. It's not good to have laws on the statute book that wouldn't be there if only they could be enforced.

So if the surveillance state highlights the fact that we're all criminals, what that should tell us is that criminal law is in urgent need of a root and branch review.

The surveillance state is a very bad idea for many reasons. But saying that we reject the surveillance state because then laws could actually be enforced is a questionable argument. There are many better ones.

[CiPHPerCoder]

Start over from zero: We have these civil rights and no one, not even the government, may not impede on them. And then criminalize things that make sense to criminalize.

Odds are, in a few hundred years, we'll end up right back where we started.