Introduction Digital technologies, particularly artificial intelligence and generative AI (GenAI), are reshaping the landscape of global development. From optimizing social protection systems to enhancing smart infrastructure in cities, these innovations promise more inclusive and efficient governance. Yet, their increasing reliance on data, often extracted without full understanding or consent, raises profound ethical and legal questions about privacy, surveillance, and power. This reflection treats AI development as a subset of digital development sought after by state actors as it explores how development agendas can responsibly harness emerging technologies while protecting the fundamental rights of individuals, especially in underregulated or vulnerable contexts. Drawing on the frameworks of surveillance capitalism and Southeast Asian experiences, it argues for a shift toward rightsbased, people-centric governance that embeds accountability and community agency at its core. While surveillance capitalism, as articulated by Shoshana Zuboff, was originally developed to critique how private corporations extract personal data for behavioral prediction and profit, its core dynamics; namely, data capture, asymmetrical power, and opacity, are increasingly mirrored in state-led digital development programs. In Southeast Asia, governments and their development partners increasingly deploy artificial intelligence and big data tools under the banner of national progress, digital transformation, or efficient service delivery. These interventions often collect granular data on citizens, ranging from biometric IDs and health records to digital transactions and mobility patterns, with little meaningful consent from citizens or measures for redress. Although the aim is not always commercial gain, this form of “surveillance for development” risks reproducing the same structural asymmetries Zuboff warns against: individuals as passive data sources, and institutions, whether private or public, as unaccountable stewards of that data. Crucially, the power dynamic in state-led data extraction differs from corporate surveillance in that the state can exercise coercive authority over its population from mandating participation in digital ID systems, denying benefits for non-compliance, or using predictive algorithms in policing or welfare targeting. This renders the surveillance-development nexus even more consequential. When development agencies promote or fund such programs, often through “smart governance” or “digital inclusion” initiatives, they may inadvertently entrench what could be called Surveillance Developmentalism: the use of data-driven technologies to expand state capacity without adequate safeguards for civil liberties, data 1