>0:10 I point it out.
    >0:11 I said I would vote for this every
    >0:12 single time and I'll say it again. Um,
    >0:15 uh, camera technology and your
    >0:17 expectation of privacy when you're
    >0:19 driving around um, is none. And there is
    >0:22 no expectation of privacy when you're
    >0:24 driving a stolen car. Uh, you don't have
    >0:27 that expectation. That's the law of the
    >0:28 United States.

Is it incorrect? Judge for yourself. But the headline, "Politician calls constituents criminals with no right to privacy" is obviously false.

Every conversation they have, every thing they write down, everything they do on a computer or phone, everything their staff does, says, writes down, or does on a computer or a phone, everything all of these people do: who they have sex with, whose comedy shows they go see, where they spend their vacations, all of this should be entered into the public record.

Not even national security is a compelling reason for secrecy. The only legitimate need is to wage war against other nations, but the majority use case is to conspire more effectively against the public for profit or to increase authority. In a world where every country on earth is forced into a similar regime, the default case is everyone watches the political situation and can react accordingly if things go wrong. If war sentiment precipitates quickly usually the cause can be traced to individual actors, and those people can be removed from office by the people of their respective countries if the sentiment isn't generally shared. If the people decide they want war anyway, they can direct their governments to resume secrecy for the duration of the war.

If you are not a decision-maker in society this is ideal for you, and it is probably worth suffering WW3 to enforce it globally.