So your point is unfalsifiable? If you don't have evidence and accrued data, then your assertion seems like a point without value then. ("Sorry you had to find out this way.")
That's not what unfalsifiable means. If it were false, we would see evidence, such as speed limits being lower and actually respected, and strong widespread opposition to government surveillance. I think the word you're looking for is "unfalse".
"not able to be proven false, but not necessarily true."
You are unable to provide evidence, i.e. data, to support your claim (yet again). I cannot prove a statement false if there is no evidence to call into dispute. You do not have any concrete information that supports the notion that more people, in a direct comparison, would care about speeding, as opposed to government surveillance. Your statement is an unfounded assertion, not an accurate measure of what is just, valid, and/or righteous.
Without evidence, your statement merely explains what you want, not what society as a whole is looking for, or what policies should be put into place.
What you are calling "evidence", I am calling an unfounded assertion. You insist that polls aren't/can't be valid indicators of public preference, and you don't have hard data regarding the preference "in reality" for being able to speed over government surveillance. It's not that I don't "like" your evidence, it's that you haven't presented any.
Then, still without evidence or justification, you imply that others are out of touch with reality for not seeing things from your point of view. ("Sorry you had to find out this way."; "I am not so out of touch...") How delightful. Perhaps you'd be more persuasive if you actually demonstrated how the current state of surveillance reflects public opinion and desires rather than just declaring that as self-evident.
