The grass-roots surveillance network in the United States is poised for yet another major expansion this Christmas season. Think of each new Ring video doorbell, discount DNA test, WiFi-equipped clothes dryer, smart speaker and mobile phone as a new node on the world’s most advanced and pervasive effort at human monitoring. All that data is collected by someone, somewhere.

It was hard not to cast a slightly jaded eye at the packages under my own tree after working for months on the Times Opinion Privacy Project’s investigation into the location tracking industry. That investigation, based on a dataset provided by sources alarmed by the unchecked power of the tracking industry, offered a look at more than 50 billion location pings from the phones of more than 12 million Americans across several major cities. We were able to easily identify Americans who work for the Secret Service and the local high school, their lives and movements an open book simply because they downloaded an app on their smartphone and enabled — wittingly or unwittingly — location services.

It is easy to read through the series and conclude that all is lost, that privacy is dead or at least archaic and that there’s simply no reforming the data-dependent culture that Americans have unintentionally embraced. After all, anyone who uses devices like smartphones, smart speakers and smart televisions has only the illusion of control when it comes to protecting personal privacy, because the government hasn’t seen fit to ban even the most intrusive data collection practices.

Some day, my child will look back aghast and ask: Wait, Dad, that was all legal?

So, what to make of all the new data-gobbling devices given by the millions? I’d say cast them into the sea, but there’s far too much plastic there as it is.

I reached out to some of the dozens of technology experts, government officials, lawyers, privacy professionals and several others who have served as a sort of informal brain trust since the Privacy Project started in April. Several pointed to a list of some of the best and worst gifts for privacy, compiled by Mozilla. Scroll down the list and a helpful emoji guide gets more and more freaked out by how creepy the devices are.

Trevor Hughes, president of the International Association of Privacy Professionals, said that a good first question to answer is this: How does this new device affect the privacy of other people? For instance, he said: “Does your drone create a privacy issue for your neighbors? How about your Ring doorbell — are you connecting to some of the neighborhood watch programs? And what about that DNA test? You will be unlocking information that could expose family secrets or indiscretions that have long been buried.”

A federal law enforcement official told me: “Last year, my husband gave me a DNA test for Christmas. I thanked him and threw it in the trash.” DNA tests can show where your ancestors may have come from, but it can also compromise the privacy of your descendants for generations to come. The Pentagon this week warned members of the military not to use consumer DNA kits because they pose a security risk. Some stocking stuffer.

One expert warned the recipients of smart devices to change the user names and passwords without the gift giver present, noting the often irresistible temptation humans have to spy on their loved ones.

Woodrow Hartzog, a professor at Northeastern University Law School, offered a more optimistic framing of the WiFi-connected devices — the so-called internet of things — that now populate our homes: “If it’s an internet of things gift that has a ‘dumb switch’ that allows me simply to disable the connectivity while still using the product (imagine an IoT coffee maker), I happily accept the gift and thank them for giving me something with such versatility. I think it’s a positive thing to emphasize products that will allow me to use them even if I don’t want to hook them up to the internet.”

Another privacy thinker advised to buy only smart technology that you would bring into your own home. Think Alexa is too creepy for your kitchen? No fair giving it to Aunt Mary. Privacy, after all, is a collective problem. One thing to keep in mind is that the price of a gadget is often discounted because of the value of all the data the user will provide the gadget maker over the life of the product.

Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon who has been sounding the alarm about privacy-eviscerating technology for years, was at once resigned to the infiltration of these gadgets into American life and hopeful for a safer future. “Realistically, pretty much anyone who uses a device that connects to the internet is going to be swept up into a shady data broker’s trove of information,” he said. “So I’d tell my friends and family the same thing I tell my constituents: The best thing to do is push for new laws, with teeth, to stop wireless companies and app developers and other corporations from abusing your personal data.”

That’s a New Year’s resolution I can endorse.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.