Is that actually the assumption? I'm pretty sure everyone already assumes that the government already has all of your messages, browsing history, transactions, etc, and they can come for you if they want.
Between the massive surveillance state that already exists and the judicial miracle of "parallel construction", it's already very much a problem. The only thing left to do is scale up.
Telescreens, watched by "AI".
They can arrest you on trumped up charges, but it's not really feasible to do that to everybody, and extreme heavy-handedness promotes resistance.
Once they reach inside your device, they don't have to murder or imprison you, they can just give you a little slap whenever you try to stray from the garden path. Let you know that they're watching so they don't even have to censor you, and can claim that they don't, because you censor yourself.
Crimethink. Doubleplus ungood.
No, but I would imagine there would soon be some way of removing your liberty and keep you under house arrest for a set period. Imagine if they made sure your banking and cards were frozen for the period to stop you going anywhere...
(On the sibling thread: by my calculation at most 13% of the 1984 society had telescreens, so at roughly 60% global internet usage we're well ahead of Orwell for staring into Palantirs.
Someone in the non-aligned movement ought to produce networking gear, so we aren't necessarily beholden to suppliers approved by one of the two[0] largest economies. Then again, seeing what happened to the former "leader of the third world" after the Cold War, maybe it's best not to draw attention to oneself in that way. "None of you has ever seen a dead donkey.")
[0] China, US, would you all please reflect that "one to embody power the other to crave it" is a philosophy attributed to the "bad guys" in that particular mythos?