Maybe, and if that were the case, the number of people the sarcasm is missing means it could have been communicated better. Watch his karma swing around -- I'm not the only one that missed it, apparently. It certainly wasn't a good spot for it, because he's responding to sarcasm.
Ha, I posted that I wondered if I was going to come back to a -4 or a +4 karma :)
Yes it was sarcastic. As other commenters said, it's a very common and senseless rhetoric used by anti-privacy politicians. Applying it to an extreme example (like camera in your home) was meant to demonstrate how daft such a stance is.
But I disagree, I think it was a very good spot for it: In my mind, some of the best irony is when it's nearly indistinguishable from truth. So I will take the swinging karma as a complement :D
It's also a worrying illustration of how far the anti-privacy agenda has progressed, when people can think you're seriously advocating surveillance cameras in private homes.
It's a popular mantra made by politicians any time they want to introduce a new anti-privacy measure. This mantra and his version especially is so farcical, I think it's obvious to the majority of readers that his tongue is firmly in his cheek.