>>>> Abuse by police officers and other individuals with access to these systems is the answer to the stupid but common question "why should I worry about surveillance if I have nothing to hide".

>>> I never hear that question from Flock supporters. The question I hear is "why shouldn't we be pulling over stolen cars?"

>> These are the same Constitutional question.

> They're not remotely the same Constitutional question.

They absolutely are the same Constitutional question; surveillance by the State without a warrant supported by probable cause, verified by the judiciary and issued thusly, does not have "an upside" of coincidentally identifying criminality. Remember this portion of the 4th amendment:

  ... and particularly describing the place to be searched,
  and the persons or things to be seized.

How does ubiquitous surveillance used as evidence whenever possible not violate this section of the Constitution, if not others?

And how could the question "why shouldn't we be pulling over stolen cars?" be answered without "why should I worry about surveillance if I have nothing to hide" being aligned?

They are the same Constitutional question - to accept one is to accept the other.