Something to keep in mind when building out any kind of surveillance: you probably don't get to choose who uses it, and how it's used.

Fortunately, recent events have made some of the risks much easier to appreciate.

For example, let's say that your city council and universities have been opposing very recent rogue moves in upper government. Suddenly, the well-regarded local police are getting body cams, which they never needed before, but it seems like a good thing that some community activists ask for.

But... Data fusion means that not only will said rogue elements in upper government soon have access to that general surveillance feed, but (since disregarding the Constitution anyway) will be able to enforce local police complying with rogue directives.

An example first application of that might be due to the local police having a policy of not checking reporting parties for immigration status, to encourage mutual cooperation between police and community. The rogue could automate that away, with fairly simple "AI" monitoring for compliance, already feasible.

Those earlier community activists change their mind about introducing surveillance, but too late.

Then the rogue use cases can get worse from there. First in enforcing general practice compliance like above, and then (if situation and pretense decay further) unconstitutionally more specifically tasking those local police as additional foot resources for the rogue's goals. Thanks to the body cams and other surveillance, a rogue will be able to centrally monitor for compliance all these loose resources in various cities. Maybe using other surveillance to determine who does and doesn't gets tasked for what.

(If this sounds unlikely, think back to how quickly masked officers were tasked to grab off the street someone who did nothing wrong, Soviet secret police style. And other officers were openly circumventing legitimate court orders against extraordinary rendition of grabbed people. Maybe complementary surveillance helps the rogue mass-distinguish "loyalists" from the ones who'd question illegal orders. Plot the arc.)

Body cams is just taking one example of what we might've assumed was a positive, progressive thing for society, and showing how quickly it can be turned against society, by bad elements.

I think the general answer is not to implement surveillance power when you don't have sufficient checks and balances to keep it operating within the interests of the people, both now and in the future.

And don't fool yourself about immediate intent of something you're building. Obviously that employee surveillance software you're developing isn't only for regulatory compliance, or detecting a spy stealing IP. But more frequently will be abused by dim and petty managers, to create dystopian work environments that slowly kill everyone with stress and misery. And occasionally will be used by corporate to try to suppress someone who complains of sexual harassment or accounting irregularities.

One of the first things you can do, as a thoughtful tech worker with integrity, is to simply not apply for the questionable-looking jobs. Many of them are obvious, and you'll get an unpleasant gut feel, just by reading their one-sentence startup blurb, or maybe when you look at the job description. Then close the tab without applying, and go soothe your nausea with some /r/aww or the gym. Let the icky company be flooded with the robo-appliers, the lower-skilled, and those who have good tech skills but are less-thoughtful or less-principled. Hey, maybe a company that's a mix of the low-skilled and the shitty will sabotage its own efforts, without you having to be involved.

VC money is fueling a global boom in worker surveillance tech