I'm totally on board with the "Fair Play" concept for victimless crime. If you are going to give me a speeding ticket, you should spend the time and energy having a guy out there with a radar gun, because the traffic camera is just cheating. But it is difficult to extrapolate that to other crimes. We don't want fair play for terrorists or rapists; we want them out of the way as quick as possible. That is where the balance has to be struck. 

Nobody likes breaches of privacy because we all have private lives. Sure, some perfect Quaker who never sins might only care about this out of principle, but the rest of us care because we all really do have something we'd like to keep hidden. Nobody wants the RIAA knocking on their door every time they pirate a song, and none of us want our porn habits recording anywhere at all ever. And since this is a forum of writers, I guarantee you that our search histories would be enough to make Bin Laden blush. I guess that all goes back to fair play again. That's really the thing that was stand to lose. 

So yeh, privacy is great and we all want it, but at the same time we all want to use all the tools at our disposal to halt the truly awful crimes, so it becomes a matter of finding what balance we prefer. But more importantly, it becomes a matter of promoting that balance.

[quote]My idea was about having a government where leaders had to be under constant surveillance in order to prevent corruption.[/quote]

But then who watches the watchmen watchers? In our system, we already have the best anti-corruption tool at our disposal; the vote. That we don't use it is totally our fault.