Finish your sentence, please :)
That was the original purpose of the tracking dots. I don't think it's at all surprising that an intelligence agency would co-opt a law enforcement identification mechanism.
There is nothing "hostile" about preventing individuals from breaking the law.
1) It prevents nothing. It is about post-facto detection.
2) It is self-evidently hostile to the law-breaker.
3) Whether or not it is moral to break the law is the relevant question, and that depends on the law. The "original purpose" of this tech hardly matters. Ask the authors of Soviet-era samizdat.
It all depends on how they do it. There are plenty of hostile things that are done in the name of law enforcement.
The Stasi took fingerprints of every typewritter so people couldn't publish illegal things. This is not hostile only if the state is defined as non hostile.
Shall we all be clockwork oranges, then? The only ones allowed to have free will shall be the ones that programmed us to vote them into the legislature every time?