Yes, the evidence would be every Espionage Act prosecution under the Obama administration. Which are more numerous than the total of every previous administration since 1917.
If you could justify how that's not worrisome that would be great.
Sorry, I did not mean to imply that taxation is necessary for surveillance.
What I'm proposing is that regulation is one way of legitimizing the role of surveillance. The government has a reason to be involved by virtue of the fact that it's made regulations.
I did a bad job in conveying that idea above. It's certainly possible my analysis is utterly incorrect as well.