Do not expect this from the UK. That fight despite millions of signatures was batted down:

The UK is introducing passed legislation that citizens' digital IDs are owned by a Google or Apple smartphone.

The UK already have such laws active and in force that company directors must submit their information through an app available only from Google or Apple. It is clear 'digital IDs' will go the same way.

It's not about age or attribute verification. It's about tracking. Which Google excel at, the only alternative Apple and their opt-in.

Governments are quite happy making citizens have megacorps track their lives.

In the USA, at least, the right to record in public is protected by the First Amendment.

Corporations don't need cameras to track people, they have had the ability to track bluetooth emissions for well over a decade. Unless you turn off a lot of connectivity settings, smartphones are pretty much open tracking devices.

[1]https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/14/opinion/bluet...

So Ring doorbells and networked CCTV? We're there already. Billboards alongside roads containing targeted advertising already exist, too.

I'm not too fussed about the advertisers in this aspect. The people these companies sell data too not meant for advertising are much more dangerous. That includes the government.

The kinetic solution starts at misdemeanour.

> The idea of being constantly monitored by a megacorp tracking all my movements wih their swarm of cameras to feed us personalized ads is utterly dystopian indeed.

That's very similar to the basis of _The Circle_ by Dave Eggers.

"But I think the only valid way yo prevent this will be legislation though, it's not a fight individuals can win on their own."

It will need both. Secretly recording in the public is already prohibited in many if not most jurisdictions, but ad far as I know, not really prosecuted.