Yes because societies are built on rules and enforcement of the societal contract has always come, in some measure, by the government's ability to enforce the basically decent behavior that the majority wants.

The fact that the majority has often historically been in the wrong doesn't mean that we throw the baby out with the bathwater and get rid of enforcement of the laws: Anarchy is not preferable to a well ordered peaceful society.

Hmm, I don't think I'm advocating for anarchy. I find it hard to put this into words in a coherent way; but I think it's preferable that the state's capabilities are somewhat matched by the populace's. Not just the legalities of checks & balances. The people need to be able to watch the state if the state is watching them.

This capability is currently very much lacking. We (by which I broadly mean western countries in general) are seeing less and less government transparency. Trade deals are brokered in secret, surveillance bills are rushed through parliaments, terrorism and child abuse are being used as blanket excuses for pretty much everything. Journalists get less and less access. In some countries (Italy comes to mind) there are very strong ties between the government and the media.

And sure, we have some form of representative democracy, but it seems like governments in many cases don't represent their people, but rather their own interests. The people are often unaware of what their governments get up to (various atrocities in the Middle East come to mind). By the time the next election comes up, the damage is already done, with zero accountability.

Long story short: it's good for governments to be able to enforce laws that benefit (all? most?) people, but the people need to be able to stick it to the government if need be. And with all this government surveillance, that's become virtually impossible.

Anarchy is not opposed to a well ordered peaceful society!

How so?

Anarchy just implies no ruling authority. It may lead to chaos and disorder, but that only follows if you prove (or believe) that ruling authority is necessary to prevent chaos and disorder.

In my constitution surveillance is illegal and I am also obliged to resist an unjust law. That doesn't result in anarchy at all.

> Any government could make $thing illegal tomorrow.

Okay, but if a government wasn’t legally allowed to surveil you, they could change the law tomorrow so that they could legally surveil you. I’m not sure what this mode of argument really shows.

That's true. I don't think it's the legality of the surveillance that's bothering me, it's more the vast and ever growing capability of the surveillance apparatus. Which is fueled by the legal framework.