Going forward, option 1 is the only realistic way to ensure privacy. We leak too much data. It's not completely out of the question that in a few decades, extra

Going forward, option 1 is the only realistic way to ensure privacy. We leak too much data. It's not completely out of the question that in a few decades, extracting audio+video information on everyone, all the time, will be technically feasible. Add that to tracking software to monitor movements, and a state-level adversary may very well be able to know everything about you. Encryption doesn't help if they're listening to every word you speak in your house. Even today, what are the technical limitations in deploying array microphones, or laser listening devices? (I'd say TEMPEST style attacks might exist too, but display technology advancing might put a crimp in that, maybe.) We've seen places use MAC addresses and WiFi probes to track people. In the future, it may be possible to do active monitoring via cameras, then correlate to identity by sweeping up organic pieces and sequencing DNA. (Maybe? I don't think there's any theoretical problem here, is there? We shed hair and skin all over.) Heck, I'm a bit surprised places aren't collecting fingerprints left and right. It does not seem like there are available countermeasures. You'd need a constant energy+matter shield everywhere you go. Instead, making surveillance tech strictly limited seems like the only real defense. (Just like nuclear defense relies heavily on restricting access.) This is a prediction of a shitty future, but do we realistically expect tech advances to stop soon? If you went back 30 years and polled people, they'd probably think the surveillance that's done today to be inconceivable.