The answer is ... no. Not because it wouldn't solve the problem, but because at some point cameras will be so ubiquitous that there's no point in banning the S

The answer is ... no. Not because it wouldn't solve the problem, but because at some point cameras will be so ubiquitous that there's no point in banning the State from putting up cameras, because every tom, dick, and harry has a camera on their phone and on their glasses, every store has a camera system, some jackets and hats have cameras, etc, etc, etc. Sure. The State doesn't have cameras. It will develop a automated warrant-generator to pull all cloud footage from cameras that were in a specific area at a specific time. They will have agreements with the major cloud camera vendors. All legal, above board, reasonable, protective of rights and process, and exactly identical to if the State had camera towers. Same for biometric ID. Fine. You don't want the State having in-house biometrics? Great. It can set up agreements with Facebook and Google: "Identify this person" - a few flatfeet go run down those leads. Net effect is to have the same result, but now with less accountability (private firm), more expense (private contracts getting profit), and less safety (private firms with the data). That's why we need to assume the existence of these technologies and the followons, then design the world we want to see given the followons.