> Jim, are you seriously suggesting that the total and complete surveillance state should be EVEN MORE EXTENSIVE? Are you drunk or something?

Actually, it's more accurate for me to claim that YOU must be drunk.  I've merely advocated that technology, in this case smartphones, be useable by people to protect themselves (and others.)  But I do so in spite of the possibility that smartphones could be misused by government, not because of that.  I said absolutely nothing about the "surveillance state", a term which conveniently you fail to define.

The first electrical burglar alarm was patented in 1852.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Holmes_(inventor)     That allowed "surveillance", of a very primitive type,  but it was not a part of any "surveillance state".  

Smartphones, and even ordinary cell phones before them, had and have security issues.  But to argue that ANY use of them, by individuals to protect themselves, somehow becomes part of the "surveillance state" is nonsense.  

                 Jim Bell