If you're a black person what happens to MLK-type figures matters to you, even if you're not them.
You don't get it: You can't have democracy in a surveillance state.
You don't get it: You can't have democracy in a surveillance state.
It's nonsensical: In what way do you propose to not make the subject of surveillance disempowered?
The key is that government should be unable to prevent you from excercising your rights to action despite knowing that you want to change things. If you really need to conspire in secrecy, then it's probably already too late for anything other than an armed revolution to fix that.
>The key is that government should be unable to prevent you from exercising your rights to action
No that's not the key. Severely impairing your ability to act or discouraging action by causing pain is essentially as effective as outright prohibition as is lowering someone's public esteem.