But he's saying that even if the answer to your concern is satisfying, there are other factors which outweigh that benefit and should be considered.

> there are other factors which outweigh that benefit

How can you weigh a cost against a benefit when you have no idea how big the benefit is?

I can't say in the particular case of surveillance.

One generalized answer to your question is:

"if the cost is unethical" then paying it really isn't on the table for ethical people.

So the cost of doing something unethical is infinite, assuming that you need to remain ethical, and any benefit is necessary smaller than the cost of losing your ethical status.

You might not agree that ethics are pragmatically important, but the point here is that it's possible to do a utilitarian calculus even if you don't know fully understand the possible upsides.

Can I ask how you're doubting this:

> Total surveillance would result in more crimes being solved

With perfect and total information how would fewer crimes be solved?

When you’re trying to find a needle in a haystack adding more hay isn’t the solution.

I expect the rationale is that once governments have total access to phones, criminals will stop using them, and governments will still have the access.

Total surveillance doesn't guarantee "perfect and total information".