Yup - I'm for it, in a very specific combination. A universal basic income that is regularly recalculated to ensure that it provides for all basic needs, connected with a flat tax on any income earned through other means and an abolishment of the minimum wage. What it means: taxes become much simpler, the vast majority of people don't need to do them at all. Employers only advertise with net income, so you immediately know what you're getting at the end of the week/month. Since there is no minimum wage (and since one isn't necessary any more due to everyone having their basic needs covered), the economy is more inclusive, since jobs that don't attract as much money but still benefit society like being a musician can be done that much more. Employees have more power since losing their job doesn't mean the threat of losing the ability to afford necessities, meaning they also have a stronger position at the bargaining table.
unknownuserunknownlocation
Others have explained pretty well how to examine your threat model, and what is realistic and what is not.
What I notice though, is that you seem kind of panicked. You're worried about a myriad of different threats. Is there something that has happened in your life that has drastically changed your threat model or did you just read a lot and start worrying?
If it's the second, slow down. Things won't drastically change. Pick one thing (Let's say the recording without your awareness aspect), read up about it, just not on conspiracy websites, understand how privacy controls work, what they can and can't control, how the OS handles these things, etc. Look at what your settings in that regard, look at what you want to change (if anything), and how it affects your day-to-day life. Live with the changes for a while, until you get used to them. Then move to the next topic.
If it's the first, then still look at the different aspects one after the other. You won't be helping anything by panicking.
Rolled oats seems to work pretty well. They tend to float and the ducks like them (and it's not bad for them).
IT restrictions should be much more conservatively applied (at least in comparison to what's happening in my neck of the woods). Hear me out.
Of course, if you restrict something in IT, you have a theoretical increase in security. You're reducing the attack surface in some way, shape or form. Usually at the cost of productivity. But also at the cost of the the employees' good will towards the IT department and IT security. Which is an important aspect, since you will never be able to eliminate your attack surface, and employees with good will can be your eyes and ears on the ground.
At my company I've watched restrictions getting tighter and tighter. And yes, it's reduced the attack surface in theory, but holy shit has it ruined my colleagues' attitude towards IT security. "They're constantly finding things to make our job harder." "Honestly, I'm so sick of this shit, let's not bother reporting this, it's not my job anyway." "It will be fine, IT security is taking care of it anyway." "What can go wrong when are computers are so nailed shut?" It didn't used to be this way.
I'm not saying all restrictions are wrong, some definitely do make sense. But many of them have just pissed off my colleagues so much that I worry about their cooperation when shit ends up hitting the fan. "WTF were all these restrictions for that castrated our work then? Fix your shit yourself!"