Here's a pet peeve of mine: The critique of increasing mass surveillance focuses too much on technological problems and abuses by individual humans.
A fully-functioning, automated surveillance society with minimal potential for abuse by individual police etc. would be much worse than the partially-working systems we have now. A surveillance society is the antithesis of a free, democratic society.
The underlying assumption of mass surveillance is that the individuals in societies can not be trusted to work for the best of the society and must be left no option but to conform to the law. This is in stark contrast to the idea that citizens generally see their society as something they wish to preserve, and legislation and law enforcement exists to modify incentives in cases where altruism, self-interest and a sense of social responsibility are insufficient to keep order.
In other words, to support a surveillance society is to give up on the foundations of a democratic society that works to support the goals of its citizens, in favour of a society that treats its citizens as subjects to be ruled over.
This is, of course, a much harder political argument to make than "the tech doesn't work", but it's an argument that needs to be made because one day, the tech will work.