[jameslk]

> Since it's a democracy, if it was an issue people cared about, they would have voted in someone in local/state/national level who would oppose surveillance, no?

The US is a representative democracy, which means US citizens can't vote directly on laws (most of the time--e.g. CA has a system that allows some direct democracy). Those elected decide, and usually those elected aren't elected because of their views on surveillance but rather something else (e.g. jobs). For example, there's been places where citizens have majority wanted Flock cameras removed, but the local government doesn't do anything about it. Similarly, most US citizens don't believe elected officials should be allowed to trade stock, but elected officials have never enacted that into law.

There's a constant force for the state to become more powerful and authoritarian. I think it's the natural state of things. Why wouldn't a politician want more power? Fewer in power would argue against that.

At least in the US, this was foreseen at its founding, so the original constitution was designed to water down the federal government's ability to lord over everyone's lives (e.g. the bill of rights). But those in power are constantly seeking to undermine it. And that's where we're at today. Constantly trying to uphold our rights against a state that naturally gravitates towards more power.