Society. 10 million people, graded 1-10 on wealth with 1 being poorest, 10 being richest (landlord class). Introduce surveillance. Track everything everybody does. Police all criminal activity. What's the complaint, if only those guilty of breaking the law need to worry about being prosecuted? Because the higher your grade, the more you're able to get an even break for the crime committed; and if you're at the top, the role of policing is protecting your interests so being caught doesn't mean being prosecuted.
It's like driving offences. Cops don't give poor people a break. Cops invariably give good white citizens a break. Cops seldom cite the highest graded wealthy citizens at all. Arguments against the surveillance state break down landlord and tenant and sucker lines. Landlords are in favour because it is all about regulating the public, protecting their wealth and power, enforcing the law in inverse proportion to the general contribution of the citizen to the tax coffers. Suckers aren't protected from felonies but get their day in court, which seems to satisfy them it's worth giving up freedom for the sake of homogenous safe streets. Tenants tend to be against not because they're all criminals but because they know from experience they're going to be the victims of any crackdown, steamrolled by systemic barriers to upward mobility that doesn't fit the neat paradigm of accepted "Uncle Tom" conformity to the norms of the higher grades.