I think the issue here is not where we are at but the risks inherent.

It would be entirely possible to have a benevolent dictator, he might think he is doing everything for the benefit of the people - and he might even be right. This situation is fine, the issue is what happens when that dictator dies.

Similarly with mass surveillance, if used with restraint and for the right reasons it could be completely fine. The problem is what happens if the situation changes, there is now a massively powerful tool available with little recourse for change.

I think the issue is not the situation as it is _now_, it's the risk potential it inherently has that is terrifying.