The most valuable argument against privacy, is it being abused by criminals. It's foundational to the "I have nothing to hide" fallacy: waived by those, conditioned into believing, mass-surveillance being a proportional compromise; if potentially elevating their sense of "safety". What they fail to recognize however, is mass-surveillance simply being an escalation, of the fundamentally flawed enforcement model: responsible for their lack of confidence in it. Enforcement of laws should be the exception, not the rule; otherwise conflicting incentives are ought to be addressed first (primarily: large discrepancies in socio-economics, and in turn all that stems from it).

Crime prevention based on enforcement can only prove unsustainable: to be compensated for, using automated systems during technological abundance (which is now). These systems are incompatible with privacy, and more broadly speaking: tangible assurance, personal data isn't being collected without one's explicit consent (regardless of whether the "expectation of privacy" demoralization applies). My sympathy goes out to any well-intended officer, tasked with treating symptoms of an effective aristocracy: intolerant towards meaningful change, which would challenge its self-serving interests. Just a thought, which has been plaguing me for too long... :)