> This sounds absolutely worth the "cost."

This is assuming that's how it would shake out (but I don't think it really is):

Not to me. I'd rather live free in a world where crime exists than constantly watched in a world where it doesn't.

Because _that_ would never get abused.

> If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear

What if you're in a country/locale that, for example, makes same sex relationships illegal? You do have to hide it now, and so you do have to fear. Who gets to determine what has to be hidden?

Perhaps in a fascist or authoritarian society. For social democratic nations that have been educated out of such bigotry and have responsible people wielding these tools using due process, I don't see the problem.

> If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear

That only works in a fascist or authoritarian society. People in social democratic nations have differing opinions on what is right or wrong.

Governments and societies do not act according to their defined type at all times. You assume a "social democratic" nation does not sometimes act in "authoritarian" or "fascist" ways, which is plain wrong. Either you're a deeply fearful person, a fed, or incredibly naive. I'm glad your view is not common.