If you're so curious, I suggest you do what I did and read more of their public statements and writings to satisfy your curiosity.
Thanks for your suggestion.
Of the 16 linked papers/book-chapters a few were not freely accessible.
Of the ones that were accessible, 3 contain the string "surveil" in the body and 1 contains it in the bibliography. None of the references were helpful unfortunately.
Do you have any other links that may answer the question?
I actually mean to ask the exact question: How does one distinguish between software that can be used for surveillance and software that cannot?
To be more specific, if an ethicist objects to the publication of software that can be used for surveillance, they are assuming that the software can be used for surveillance. How did they arrive at that conclusion?