Based on the rest of the thread, that's probably a typo. It's an interesting slip, however, because he already set up this so-illuminating contrast between a simpleminded "durhh, surveillance bad" straw man and those wise dispassionate thinkers who are willing to consider any state action in its proper context.

Because apparently it's necessary to burn the straw, no one is against e.g. the surveillance required on the part of police in order to avoid indiscriminately arresting everyone all the time. I.e., if police have good reason to believe that a law has been broken, it's probably appropriate to make an arrest. If they don't, it's probably not. Some targeted surveillance is appropriate to distinguish those two situations.