This whole argument is BS.
Most of the posters here will post more damning information on a public forum than surveillance will ever pickup then cry "oh my privacy is being invaded" when someone snaps them going through a red light or speeding.
Really... Get over it. If one violent criminal is captured by a slight, and mostly unknown invasion of my privacy that has been a good day.
And to the OP if you want to ask that question at least link to an article that has the situation you are referring to, i.e. an innocent that was watched and that caused then to be convicted of a crime they were not guilty of.
If you had read past the first post, you would have found the link. Apart from that, you are missing the point. What people put up on public fora is what they choose to reveal. That choice is absent when you are subjected to mass surveillance.
For example, maybe a prominent Male lawyer/doctor/accountant/businessman maybe like to dress in nappies/womens clothing/etc at home.
Its no body business by him and his families. However mass surveillance may well pick up on this, this could lead to that person being pressured into making certain choices
or that information gets leaked. Thing is, that behaviour happens, its not illegal, its not immoral, its not any of your business, however the risk of public ridicule among
friends, family, professional colleagues is a powerful weapon open to abuse for financial /political reasons , i.e. perhaps someone is "encouraged" not to stand for parliament ,
not to take on a particular client, etc etc etc. So, yes, this person DOES have something to hide, just as 30-40 years ago being openly gay was not possible for most.
The hacking of several alphabet soup departments in the USA , if nothing else, proves that even they can be hacked. This means that any information they have can also be hacked.
The ONLY way to keep information "safe" is not to have it and mass surveillance removes that option, for everyone.