No. It is not.

Simply because something is technically possible doesn't mean that it must happen.

Simply because a thing does happen doesn't mean it must be allowed.

Legal protections can be created. Governments and corporations can be legally obliged to turn over or destroy records. Failure to do so can be subject to audits. The operating presumption is that the surveillance is happening, which should oblige a tremendous benefit of the doubt to anyone challenging or refusing such surveillance.

At another level: surveillance countermeasures will become more prevalent and effective. Small-scale tools such as data fuzzers (running a constant set of quasi-random Internet searches and traffic from your IP, generating white noise to frustrate microphones, laser-blinding cameras, whatever). If you've read Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age, the nanobot wars he describes are likely to become a reality -- your own personal defense devices seeking out and destroying surveillance bots. People realizing that a principle of least privilege and of least capability should apply to technologies: "smart paper" may be nifty and keen, but one of the advantages of plain old dumb paper is that it's not electronic, and doesn't have arbitrary programmatic capabilities. When we've got a record of microprocessor bugs being placed in electric teakettles and irons, the benefits of solid cast-iron cookware or other dumb-as-rocks tools are clear.

http://www.ibtimes.com/russia-accuses-china-spying-imported-...

At the government level, pushing back against elected officials (hey, California, when are you going to dump DiFi?). Massive lawsuits against corporate spies can have similar chilling effects on them, as well as loss-of-business. There remains considerable power in collective action, so long as people are willing to use it.