We (various human societies) do need to deal with this new ability to surveil every aspect of our lives. There are clear and obvious benefits in the future - medicine, epidemiology will have enormous reservoirs of data to draw on, entire new fields of mass behavioural psychology will come into being (I call it MAssive open online psychology or moop) and we might even find governments able to use minute by minute data of their citizens to you know, provide services to the ones they miss…
But all of this assumes a legal framework we can trust - and I don’t think this comes into being piecemeal with judges.
My personal take is that data that, without the existence of activity of a natural human, data that woukd not exist or be different must belong to that human - and that it can only be held in trust without explicit payment to that human if the data is used in the best interests of the human (something something criminal notwithstanding)
Blathering on a bit I know but I think “in the best interests of the user / citizen is a really high and valuable bar, and also that by default, if my activities create or enable the data,it belongs to me, really forces data companies to think.
Be interested in some thoughts