[0xbadcafebee]

Mass surveillance is by definition oppressive. I think you mean to say you're in favor of targeted surveillance, targeted at criminals, who are on roadways. This is the distinction that's getting lost.

Give me a database of everywhere you have ever driven, and I will find multiple ways to make you look like a criminal.

[BrenBarn]

The problem is how do you know who's a criminal beforehand.

[0xbadcafebee]

Right - we don't know. Even with mass-surveillance, you don't know if they're a criminal, because criminals can look innocent, and innocents can look criminal. That's why you need to do more than just look at the whole world and look for any pattern of criminality - you need targeted detection and analysis.

An example is cops stopping and searching you. If they're looking for a murderer, and they stop people coming out of Home Depot, and find a shovel, lye and rope in your trunk - hey, looks like a murderer! But it also could just be any customer going to Home Depot to get gardening supplies. So they can only stop people if they have probable cause: a reason they specifically think this specific person is the murderer.

(The other reason for probable cause, which is just as valid today as it was during the Framers' time, was to protect innocent civilians from unreasonable search and seizure by the Government, as well as protecting personal privacy. Mass surveillance violates all those principles.)

[nobody9999]

>The problem is how do you know who's a criminal beforehand.

Everyone is a criminal. Directed [per|pro]secution is a thing. And not a new one either[0]:

   If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I 
   will find something in them which will hang him.

[0] https://www.azquotes.com/quote/244783