They have supposedly already been used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Juan_de_Fuca_laser_i...
Eugenics?
Still, genetic engineering is marching ever-closer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAhjPd4uNFY
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assortative_mating and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogamy_(sociology)
Others, like people who are not you? I think your future children fall into that category. How will you get their consent?
As always, the public debate (and witchhunt) is focused on the tool, the symptom, the observation, and never the underlying cause.
How are these technologies being abused, and why are the perpetrators allowed to do so?
The surveillance tech already exists, as a component of personalised advertising, because it makes lots of money. It's all any government needs as well. It's flown under the radar wrt. the masses, because most people have absolutely no comprehension of how that kind of thing can work and will ignore anyone talking about it because it's an SEP.
But facial recognition is something which the masses can recognise, if not understand, and therefore react to as a threat.
Personally I think that as long as we haven't solved the first problem then we should avoid piling more possible problems upon it, so roadblocking facial recog tech is not something I would object to. But it does miss the point by rather a large margin.
I don't believe that it'll be as 'awareness-raising' as some people seem to believe either, for the reason implied above: people only care about the comprehensible threat.
I don't have a lot of hope that in the next 50 years we'll be able to prevent the ubiquity of (perhaps 3D printed and untraceable) drones broadcasting HD video to AI curated repositories that track your identity and every word (and bowel movement), if only for the lulz. Your only hope is that you'll be able to afford a home (and work in an office) with all the good countermeasures.
But as you suggest the usual answer to this is has always been regulation, which is only effective with teeth.
Nobody can stop you learning how to build a RF transmission devices, or conversely a blocker. But the FAA has very particular ideas (US specific) on what you are allowed to do and not in that space, and if you step too far out of bounds you will be shut down.
The trick is to make the penalties both likely and severe enough to outweigh any benefit you'll see. That will shut down most (ab)uses of the technology. Note regulation can include "you cannot do this as an individual or corporate entity, at all".
There are legal/regulatory limits placed on technologies that can
- create radio signals and/or interference
- reproduce some things (e.g. financial instruments)
- produce certain types of substances (e.g. nuclear, but also chemical)
- are primarily used for producing restricted things (e.g. some arms and armament)
- explode particularly well
- etc.
In some cases this will limit your ability to purchase or create them, in some cases just use. For many things you can do them as a corporation, but only if you subject yourself to scrutiny that you are playing by the rules - i.e. you will be audited.
In general, once the tech to do X exists, then X will find a way to exist.
Instead of crucifying Clearview, it might be better to open a dialogue about regulation in this space. But even that has problems; bitcoin was eventually accepted. Yet ICO regulation shows that it’s worth trying.
The point is, this kind of tech can be helpful. Feynman once cited a quote along the lines of “Science is a key that unlocks the door to heaven, but the same key unlocks the door to hell.” It seems relevant here.