That's what I love about debate on the Internet. Every issue is reduced to two options -- all or nothing. No need to bother with the complexities of finding a functional middle ground.
Why is it that with laws against theft, rape, and murder, we accept less than 100% perfect enforcment? Why is it that we don't have a "total surveillance state" to stop theft, rape, and murder to bring enforcement up to 100%? And why is it that few call for an end to laws against theft, rape, and murder on the grounds that those laws are not 100% effective or that better enforcement of these laws may lead to a "total surveillance state"? Could it be that the real world is more complex than simplistic excluded middle arguments allow for?