While it's disturbing that governments ability to invade individual lives, that type of talk is slightly missing the point: the level in which we discuss this is not the same level in which we examine our alternatives regarding security (or protecting our lives). In a way one would be an external concern, while the other internal (but there could be several ways to look at this).
Ideally, it is us who tell the government what to do. And though only crazy people today would assume all is well with governments (and armies, etc.), at least in some respect this could fall under "up to us". If (or since) we value the individual realm above all, we need to tell our governments that this is what we want them to do as well. "sure!", we all might laugh, and then give "them" the money and legislative backing to improve their surveillance systems and weapons, and forget entirely that the very nature of these beings is in real tension with, well - respecting individuals. That's all true.
But that's also where one needs to see we're not discussing the same type of thing: our value here, in the ideal level, is still our own (say liberal values. And say we put security also as a value, though it's not strictly needed here - we can also put that under "pragmatics"). The complications, the "dirt" real life brings into our dealings - these are realistic impositions going in a big way against our values, and with which we need to cope. None of us wants the monstrous creatures spying on us, or police brutality, institutional injustice, fighting wars or even having armed forces. What are they good for, anyway?
but on another level - sure, we "want them". In the circumstances, even when it's not good, it just prevents a bigger bad - though we don't value them in the ideal sense - sure we value them in the pragmatic level. It's terminator 1 on my side when all the world seems to be terminator 2. A girl mocking the abilities of this technological application on the "big brother" level is spot on in terms of how we see it in our authentic, or deep values. It's a nightmare, no doubt (and there are a million others out there, most we'll never even know about). But she's actually hilarious in another sense, as she's talking about a technology, a machine, a thing that is not supposed to be good. It's supposed to be as creepy as can, serving, well - us, in the end.
"But it never will serve us, you're so naive!" - "you think you are doing the right thing without better alternatives, but in fact it is you bringing about the bigger bad because these creatures, and their operator, and our governments - these are the mega bads of this world (and they sure brought about the deep shit we're in now - wanna give them more support, take us deeper in it?)". These are all true and fair. But again - we need to see if it's not a bit of a cop out on our side: we need to sit on our governments. We need to do the part that is really on us. The only other alternative is, as far as I can see, surrender in battles I can't see anyone really conceding (I think Y va has a bit of that in mind, and I think she's right).
Painting stuff as a struggle between ideal and realistic-pragmatic may sound like a bit of a cop out itself. And I don't think it's a nonsense claim either: where exactly do we actually live on the ideal level? it's all pragmatic. That is not easily answered. But as the real tension and the urgent claims here do seem to be regarding values, and claims of conflicting values, it is helpful to try to put some order in there. It may not be a big comfort, but keeping in mind that our value conflict is one between different spheres - "we really want to do X; But in the circumstances I have to do Y, though it sometimes contradicts X" could help keep our moral compass in tune, and always point at X no matter what the circumstances are.
(sorry for this long and not so easy post).
