Yes, by default.

I'd drop the inevitable word, but barring massive change like a technology regression or laws being passed that are very strong (and it surviving the AI era), near-perfect surveillance is very likely to happen, and the safe assumption is that nothing you do will be hidable/hidden by default.

I'm not addressing whether surveillance is good or bad.

I avoid terms (and concepts) like "inevitable".  There are LOTS of unknowns, and many future paths that go through this, or not.  Scenario-based conditionality (what would lead to this, and what would lead elsewhere) seems more fruitful.

Perfect surveillance is the default for electronic intelligence - logging is pretty universal.  I think this is likely to continue in future universes where most people are electronic.

I think the answer is "Mu" for universes with no people in them.  

I think the likely path is "never perfect, but mostly increasing over time" for universes with no singularity or collapse.  

I'd love to more about implications of the CURRENT level of observation.  Things that are just now feasible, and the things that are promoting or holding them back.  For instance, individual facial recognition got a wave of reporting a few years ago, and I honestly don't know if it just quietly became universal or if the handwringing and protests actually worked to keep it only in very controlled and visible places (like border crossings).

I have considered automated mass-surveillance likely to occur in the future, and tried to prevent it, since about 20 years ago. It bothers me that so many people don't have enough self-respect to feel insulted by the infringement of their privacy, and that many people are so naive that they think surveillance is for the sake of their safety.

Privacy has already been harmed greatly, and surveillance is already excessive. And let me remind you that the safety we were promised in return didn't arrive.  

The last good argument against mass-surveillance was "They cannot keep an eye on all of us" but I think modern automation and data processing has defeated that argument (people have just forgotten to update their cached stance on the issue).

Enough ranting. The Unabomber argued for why increases in technology would necessarily lead to reduced freedom, and I think his argument is sound from a game theory perspective. Looking at the world, it's also trivial to observe this effect, while it's difficult to find instances in which the amount of laws have decreased, or in which privacy has been won back (also applies to regulations and taxes. Many things have a worrying one-way tendency). The end-game can be predicted with simple exterpolation, but if you need an argument it's that technology is a power-modifier, and that there's an asymmetry between attack and defense (the ability to attack grows faster, which I believe caused the MAD stalemate).

I don't think it's difficult to make a case for "1", but I personally wouldn't bother much with "2" - I don't want to prepare myself for something when I can help slow it down. Hopefully web 3.0 will make smaller communities possible, resisting the pathelogical urge to connect absolutely everything together. By which time, we can get separation back, so that I can spend my time around like-minded people rather than being moderated to the extent that no groups in existence are unhappy with my behaviour. This would work out well unless encryption gets banned.

The maximization of functions lead to the death of humanity (literally or figuratively), but so does minimization (I'm arguing that pro-surveillance arguments are moral in origin and that they make a virtue out of death)

Hm, not sure about it being broadcast vs consumed by a powerful AI that somebody else has at least a partial control over.

I'd like to hear the arguments why you think perfect surveillance would be more likely in the future. I definitely think we will reach a state where surveillance is very high, high enough to massively increase policing of crimes, as well as empower authoritarian governments and the like, but I'm not sure why it would be perfect. 

It seems to me that the implications of "perfect" surveillance are similar enough to the implications of very high levels of surveillance that number 2 is still the more interesting area of research. 

I don’t think perfect surveillance is inevitable. 

I would prefer it, though. I don’t know any other way to prevent people from doing horrible things to minds running on their computers. It wouldn’t need to be publicly broadcast though, just overseen by law enforcement. I think this is much more likely than a scenario where everything you see is shared with everyone else.

Unfortunately, my mainline prediction is that people will actually be given very strong privacy rights, and will be allowed to inflict as much torture on digital minds under their control as they want. I’m not too confident in this though.