They’re different because of the job they do, who’s doing the monitoring and who has access to the records.
In all the examples you’ve given the monitoring is used to reduce the power imbalance between the public and vested interests with their own agenda.
For example, so the bank teller doesn’t steal from account holders.
For child care workers it’s to protect children in care. If it was used solely to gather information to fire potential whistleblowers people would have a problem with it too.
Considering that, for example, Meta management have a record of encouraging their staff to break copyright laws and lie about it, this surveillance probably isn’t designed to help society as a whole.
I often feel people make hand wavy comparisons as if everything in the world were equal, hoping the other party can’t clearly articulate why they are clearly not equivalent
That’s not what this was about. It was in response to a dramatic hysterical exhortation that we shouldn’t “normalize...surveillance” as though it’s not already normal and well tolerated in our society, particularly in the context of employment.
It’s not, though. Arguing that it is completely normal because a few kinds of jobs may have it is pretty disingenuous. And a lot of jobs on your list don’t actually have the kinds of controls on offer here, so you’re kind of making stuff up here.
Certain activities, for certain highly restricted purposes, yes. Blanket data collection for a purpose unrelated to safeguarding, which can be trivially leaked, as above, no.
It should be an unpleasant necessity, highly regulated. Not just something that you do on a blanket basis because you suffer under the delusion that you might create the next magic robot (I assume the driving force here is that Facebook is very, very behind in LLM-land.)
And if those are ok, what makes them different?