

Its a breaking of social contract argument.
Its bad when everyone does it, the point isn’t whether its a good thing to do or not. The social contract only works if people largely adhere to the conditions. The argument is that these people have broken their part, therefore are no longer entitled to the benefits of the bargain. It is a loss for society in general, and the action is a proposed remedy (as a social cost) aiming to restore the social contract.












Ah, no your argument is definitely on the same page then, but at different ends of that page.
So your disagreement goes to degree of breaking and ability for remedy.
Their argument is, the degree of targetting and surveillance has surpassed normal constraints while the ability for a remedy within the normal constraints of the social contract is no longer possible.
To take your example if a murderer is arrested and tried then order is restored and with it the social contract begins to heal. If the murderer however isn’t arrested and tried, then continues to murder, then what alternative remedies are available to be resorted to.