Reading the conclusion really reinforces for me the difference in priorities. One group thinks it actually would be nice to have big datasets to serve useful aims like this. But also maybe even to track actual bad people down. Despite their frequent portrayal as evil Big Brother, they don't want to use it to do harm.

The other people are afraid of a totalitarian state having control of such data because obviously it would be super bad.

The first group might argue, "As this is in theory a democratic society, can we just not voluntarily elect awful people would would make a totalitarian government? And then in the meantime we can actually use this to do good, like catching actual dangerous criminals?"

The second group clearly believes the descent into totalitarianism is inevitable and just wants to hobble those future villains as much as possible (A noble idea if you believe this).

I think the first group could argue that if a truly evil dictator does come to power, they would have zero qualms about imposing the really scary surveillance stuff themselves anyway, so what we're doing now doesn't matter as much as we think.

I don't think either is automatically wrong, but I wish both sides would acknowledge that the other has a point.