Have you ever tried traversing the ground (metaphorically speaking) between two opposite and opposing opinions? It is never easy. Here is an informative and interesting short article (weblinks below) on how far cellphone surveillance generates contentions. The Courts faced between balancing the needs of law and governance, (unelected) government - that of public servants using technology as a tool in the need for surveillance and detection of crime - and those of the citizen living in a democracy.
The reference materials used in the article are most important as they underpin the author's opinion to establishing the believed causal link to effect and affect (I guess) - that of surveillance gluttony at a cost to deminishing democracy and freedoms. The other side of that coin, which in fairness is not extrapolated at all to the same degree in this article, that of what has surveillance and detection achieved? I am mindful that the Judges founded their Court rulings on the evidence before them and the article illuminates the fulcrum for this is that 'things' get pushed too far for comfort when it comes to infringing law and governance and citizen's freedoms. The article appears to suggest (but I accept I could have misunderstood the message) that totalitarism is the occupational desire of (unelected) government in order for it to perform and to provide treatment to a problem or issue.