But they're not saying "bad thing is worse for some people than others", they're saying "thing is bad because it treats people differently and sometimes malfunctions". What will happen when those faults are corrected, but the public has not been educated about any other drawbacks, and doesn't know any other objections?

Will they suddenly learn eloquence and introspection, and be able to translate their instinctive misgivings into strong, logical arguments about the dangers of surveillance?

If you believe that, then you have far more faith in the common public than I. Misplaced faith, given how poorly they've resisted surveillance so far, even in their personal habits.