What you sacrifice is a lot of convenience, and a wholesale rejection by the very society you rely heavily on to survive.
You haven't justified the claim that "always being under surveillance" is categorically a bad thing. Either do that, or stop claiming it.
I don't have to. It's sufficient for me to say that I strongly dislike it.
> Why share this belief if you can't defend it?
Why do you think this is something that needs defending?
Regardless, I think I have adequately defended it. It's an intrusion into my life that I don't consent to and I find highly objectionable. The reason I find it objectionable is exactly the same as the reason I object to someone following me around writing down everything I do, or peering into my windows at home.
> And what you sacrifice is a lot of convenience, and a wholesale rejection by the very society you rely heavily on to survive.
Neither of those things are true at all. I do not feel greatly inconvenienced, and I fully participate in society.
> It's not tenable to live in this society and wear a ski mask while shopping in a grocery store.
I agree. I don't do that. That said, if I'm aware that a store is engaging in facial recognition, I will choose to shop at a store that doesn't.
That, too, is engaging in the society I live in.
No, nobody has to prove any such thing. This isn't an important issue to you -- that's fair. It is to others -- that's fair too.
You say "worth the degraded quality of life", but in my view, the degraded quality of life is always being under surveillance. Taking these measures improves my quality of life.
What I sacrifice is just a little bit of convenience. That's not a big hit.