However, I can only see this happening in very developed and transparent democracies. Otherwise it is most likely gonna be abused in every way it can.
Serbia already leans towards being a police state, at least in comparison to other European states, so that would just make the situation there worse.
Once you create repositories collecting data on third parties, you similarly will have to ensure that they will be protected against leaks - that the state may keep track just to be sure does not mean you would ever accept to live in glass walls.
Responsibility wise, if you gave a credit card number to a vendor, you trusted his security measures against leaking, but how about data that was copied without your consent? Who has access, how is it protected, who is responsible?
(Just one of the possible points.)
If a government need total surveillance, it is because the government don't trust its people, which is because the people does not trust the government.
This cannot fix trust issues with surveillance, you must solve this with more/better democracy, not police.
It's the same mentality as with the nuclear plants paranoia. Yes they can be dangerous if protocols fail, and yes that makes them a liability and requires constant care - but it's not a reason to completely ban a technology which also can give so many benefits to the society.
Wait a sec, I agree with you, but that's not what the parent comment claims. It says "surveillance is a bad thing period" and that's just not true, some forms of surveillance in some places can both help police and make people feel safer. Would anyone in their right mind rather park their new car in some dark alley, than under the eye of cctv camera? Of course not... so parent commenter made a huge bad generalization and that's the part I was commenting on.