When reading I actually assumed any such regulation would effectively be "regulate workplace surveillance" of sorts.

The software described would fall into that category.

Because most people have a status quo bias and instinctively want to embalm the world in the technological state it was in when they were in their 20s and early 30s. A new technology always turns over somebody's applecart. Most people don't have the long view necessary for understanding that all technological progress is good.

> Why is the conclusion always to regulate <technology> and not to regulate workplace surveillance for example?

Why not both? Both the tool and the activity?