Results to surveys can vary largely based on the way the question is asked.
Many people might want a few more cameras at very dangerous locations and such, but they simply don't realize that the trend here will be to setup cameras just about EVERYWHERE. Hell I work for a local (county) government in it's IT (ie, computer) department, and about 2 years ago Cisco had a product presentation for us for these nifty new "mesh" wireless routers. We didn't implement them (cost was WAY too much for us), but they essentially were these little computer routers that would go on every 4th or 5h power pole (in the entire county). They could "bounce" a computer signal between the units for as long as necessary to get back to our central location for wireless communication (main use here was for law enforcement and emergency services to have network access in their vehicles anywhere), but they also could have little cameras added, so that at ANY of these a person back in the office could pull up the camera for that pole.
Now, it's all in public places, but having virtually every road and house in the county under surveillance just doesn't seem too appealing.
And trust me, this is an issue that spans liberal and conservative alike. The vast majority of technology/computer enthusiasts are very, very supportive of privacy, despite having a fairly good mix of liberals and conservatives (I'd probably say around 70/30 split liberal/conservative, but that's just a guess).
Just as a heads up, just as the NRA works for our gun rights and should be supported, the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation
http://www.eff.org ) is a non-profit group in place to support electronic freedoms and privacy (an area also under frequent attack). I'd strongly urge anyone concerned with national privacy to keep an eye on their site as well.
Late edit: A good source to be cited when referring to electronic freedoms and the nightmare that this can descend into is Richard Stallman's little story, The Right to Read. When he first wrote it people felt he was exaggerating, but as time goes on his story is looking more and more plausible. The version in this link has some comments from the author updated for 2007 (the original was written 10 years ago).
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
