An "emotion free" logical sequence. Works fine for .. lots of things - doesn't apply *at all* to actual persons' responses to actions they (always via personal judgment) deem unjust? dangerous to such Biggies as "personal privacy" - YES, even in so-called 'public"! Does *that* idea need to be parsed again, too? (The upper limit of, 'constant surveillance' is, I think the opposite of No surveillance. What we have thus-far is: somewhere in between.)

As we have seen demonstrated in just this thread.

No one can agree upon a perfect 'definition' of "privacy" - let alone how much? little? of that concept -- exists in 'public' today - ought to exist? - Will exist if ___ such and such occur next.

Now if you imagine you Can reduce this dilemma to nice neat description and deduction, and even capture the *feeling* of being watched, logged and indexed - in a neat intellectial syllogism:

Go for it.