It’s up to us as voters to elect governments that do not abuse surveillance technology.

Surveillance technology is only feedback.

There's also the regulator which uses that feedback. It's means of regulation are bots, properly formed news, law policies, and raw action. Probably even targeted murders.

That system together affects whom "we as voters" elect. Because we are too many to organize, while for regulation our numbers and diversity are actually favorable, to treat us all as one object.

Which means that electoral democracy is dead. Direct democracy with nationwide mandatory participation and rotational sortitioned filling of state roles requiring a working individual (like conscription where you can't refuse or it's a process requiring some proof of good reasons) may work.

To increase as much as possible the technical complexity of influencing a society like an object.

One can also (with reservations and limitations and very careful design) look at the Soviet system (one that really functioned in early 20s and late 80s).

The key is nationwide participation. Electing someone else to represent you is just too risky with such crowd control means as available today.

While the technology can be made public-controlled in the widest sense, so that not only a certain JD Vance could see where you are at every moment, but that you could see where he is as well. All state surveillance should be public. And there should be no state secrets.