Both were always going to be kind of inevitable as soon as the technology would get there. Rather than debating how to stop this (which is mostly futile and requires all of us to be nice, which we just aren't), the more urgent debate is how to adapt to this being the reality.
Related to this is the notion of ubiquitous surveillance. Where basically anywhere you go, there is going to be active surveillance literally everywhere and AIs filtering and digging through that constantly. That's already the case in a lot of our public spaces in densely populated areas. But imagine that just being everywhere and virtually inescapable (barring Faraday cages, tin foil hats, etc.).
The most feasible way to limit the downsides of that kind of surveillance is a combination of legislation regulating this, and counter surveillance to ensure any would be illegal surveillance has a high chance of being observed and thus punished. You do this by making the technology widely available but regulating its use. People would still try to get around it but the price of getting caught abusing the tech would be jail. And with surveillance being inescapable, you'd never be certain nobody is watching you misbehaving. The beauty of mass, multilateral surveillance is that you wouldn't ever be sure nobody is not watching you abuse your privileges.
Of course, the reality of states adopting this and monopolizing this is already resulting in 1984 like scenarios in e.g. China, North Korea, and elsewhere.
Related to this is the notion of ubiquitous surveillance. Where basically anywhere you go, there is going to be active surveillance literally everywhere and AIs filtering and digging through that constantly. That's already the case in a lot of our public spaces in densely populated areas. But imagine that just being everywhere and virtually inescapable (barring Faraday cages, tin foil hats, etc.).
The most feasible way to limit the downsides of that kind of surveillance is a combination of legislation regulating this, and counter surveillance to ensure any would be illegal surveillance has a high chance of being observed and thus punished. You do this by making the technology widely available but regulating its use. People would still try to get around it but the price of getting caught abusing the tech would be jail. And with surveillance being inescapable, you'd never be certain nobody is watching you misbehaving. The beauty of mass, multilateral surveillance is that you wouldn't ever be sure nobody is not watching you abuse your privileges.
Of course, the reality of states adopting this and monopolizing this is already resulting in 1984 like scenarios in e.g. China, North Korea, and elsewhere.