Hot take, but: I'm not full-stop against surveillance. I'm not really full-stop against a lot of things that a lot of people are. Military spending? Can be good or bad. Propaganda? Can be good or bad. It really depends on whom the government in question is serving.
If your government is serving the ruling class, it is inherently precarious because of internal contradictions. Therefore, it can (and must) at any time turn against its own citizenry in order to defend the power of the ruling class. Surveillance is against the masses.
If your government, however, is itself serving not property-owners, but instead the masses, its precariousness is externally-motivated. That is, its surveillance efforts are against spies, plants, colour revolutions, bourgeois hangers-on, and the like, in order to defend the worker's state and preserve the power and unity of the working class it serves.
Oblivious people in the west like to say they don't care about surveillance because "they have nothing to hide", but the problem is, that can change very quickly. Under a people's state, though, you know where you stand: the government can put cameras in your dang toilet, but you can be certain that it's never going to suddenly decide that you're an enemy of the state for jerking off in there because the concept of 'degeneracy' must be expanded in order to further divide the working class. It's not going to map out your pooping habits to sell to the highest bidder as part of an immense corpus of data so they can better influence the way you buy and the way you vote. It just wants to make sure you're not pulling smuggled fentanyl baggies out of your butt to sell to the most vulnerable sectors of that class.
When talking about "freedom", we must always, always be asking immediately: "freedom for whom?"
