I really dislike such politically motivated names. People do generally use those terms to promote surveillance, but I can 100% support strong policing (meaning well funded police investigations and community outreach) without abandoning my own rights.
I do want police to be able to investigate potential crimes that our society collectively agreed we don't want to happen. I don't want to give up my rights to privacy, protections against search and seizure, etc.
"Pro police" and "tough on crime" don't accurately describe a view that is actually pro surveillance.
The two former terms are political in nature because they don't accurately describe what they are supporting and instead attempt to put lipstick on a pig, as it were. Sure you could argue that "pro surveillance" is political, and technically any term can be made political, but it does describe the actions being promoted.
I agree, because we share a desire to protect privacy rights. But the topic itself is political, regardless of position or the supposed validity of that position. Fighting for privacy rights is a political position.
That was kind of my question though, what makes it political other than us offering politicians the attention while they yell about a topic?
We can discuss or debate the legal rights or limits of privacy. That doesn't become political until we offer politicians air time enough to blow hot air about the topic to win votes.
I do want police to be able to investigate potential crimes that our society collectively agreed we don't want to happen. I don't want to give up my rights to privacy, protections against search and seizure, etc.