Social efficiency is only truely justified when we are acting as humans, not robots. Computers give people too much information that they don't have any business accessing, and they seem to fail to preserve an individual's privacy. Privacy is critical to quality of life, efficiency narrowmindedness often becomes subversive to that quality. Society needs to think about what they are doing and saying in order for us to reach the balance between freedom and individuality collectively. I think a balance can be achieved, though I don't know how.
Computers give institutions too much knowledge, too much power.
I hate being treated like part of a machine. I want to say that some degree of supervision based on these concerns is warranted, but it seems to imply a degree of distrust that can't possibly be good for the employer-employee dynamic. I suppose, though, that it's all about the level and manner in which a company goes about maintaining this efficiency. The question, of course, is where to draw the line, which is a hugely difficult question. Whether the kind of surveillance the chapter talks about is in the workplace or is undertaken by governmental bodies, precisely because you have individuals or groups of individuals making decisions about what level of infringement crosses the line, the answer to this quesiton is bound to be very subjective.