You're leaning towards the argument of the public throwing an uproar and then just move on, but that's because they generally go, "Eh, it didn't actually bother me in the end".

That's not what I'm getting at, yeah sure, those people flipped out, but it wasn't the nation as a whole and it wasn't active, because it wasn't "big" enough. Did the CCTV cameras affect me? Nope, I didn't give a shit, nor did smoking bans. I think most would be annoyed at the ID thing and then just think, "You know, it's really not that big a deal", because it's still not affecting us at an entirely personal level.

Think of the Black Mirror episode: Entire History of You, where everything you do is recorded into a chip and you can be forced to playback a day of your life to someone. Now it's getting more personal, this isn't CCTV that captures you on the street, this is an entire catalogue of your life available to be looked at on request. However, that could still be acceptable, because in how many instances would you actually be asked to broadcast your life history? Particularly if you're a "good" citizen. Yep, nothing to worry about there.

However, let's say you're browsing the internet and on your Facebook every page you visit is logged and available for anyone to look at. I mean anyone, including those you don't have on Facebook. Now, that's a little more personal.

Let's say every Facebook message, every text message, every email, in fact any social media or personal texts, snapchats and so on are publicly available. There's no hiding from anyone, everyone can see what you're doing at all times and can see what you're speaking about to others.

Let's say you can just click on a name and their webcam stream is live for you to watch.

See, I'm talking about something BIG, something deeply invasive, CCTV has been around for a long time and to be honest no one really cares, because "safety", so as a whole, it's not something people are up in arms about, because it's not invasive, except to those in the minority who believe they are important enough to be spied on all the time. The conspiracy theorists.

Smoking bans aren't invasive, because they only apply to certain areas and doesn't affect everyone personally.

But let's say a live broadcast in Piccadilly circus could appear at any time on the screens of you doing something in your house. Let's say you're having sex and suddenly everyone in Piccadilly Circus is watching and you are made aware they're watching via a notification or a sound in your house. Or what if every house had cameras everywhere that gave you and others the ability to be able to just go on TV and watch other people's lives.

These things directly affect everyone because it's personal, not the prospect of maybe something happening, it's a matter of "when will I appear on Piccadilly Circus" or "I really hope my employer doesn't look through my web history from yesterday".

I'm sure then you'd have many actively campaigning for privacy all of a sudden, despite ignoring it for decades. But at that point it's too late.

However, to counter my argument entirely, maybe society would just roll over and accept it entirely and even more because that's what we do, go "Oh this is silly" and a few months down the line "Eh, it's not too bad" and rinse and repeat. Suddenly showing up on Piccadilly Circus is an honour rather than an invasion of privacy.

I'm gonna be entirely honest with you, I'm a screenwriter and well, at this point it's just becoming more of a "huh, this could make for an interesting TV show, I should see what other ideas I can generate during this discussion" sort of thing and less about my argument anymore.

For this I apologise and it's been a pleasure.