well, i can move on from the issue of the definition of surveillance - once you discover what people mean by the words they are using, sometimes the issues sorta evaporate.
i guess legal surveillance cannot properly be called cyber-burglary as burglary is a sort of criminal act. also, the concept of burglary involves deprival of possession of a good and in the digital realm, monitoring isn't quite the same thing. even so, the monitor is taking possession of information the subject didn't wish to share. that's your point, i think.
i take it that you and i agree that where a third party accesses non-criminal, secret information from a person's device without permission, this is a thing we think a user may reasonably wish to prevent, either in a practical sense (encryption) or in law (enforcement of rights, suing transgressors etc) regardless of who the third party observer is.
