Your comparison isn't fair at all. The interview monitoring is: invasive, but voluntary, only for a short period of time, and for a specific, articulated purpose. The police example is: invasive, as well as involuntary, permanent, and completely unlimited in its scope.
To make a comparison like your comparison: Apple stole $500 from me when I bought my iPhone! Thieves!
Giving something up of your own free will (in exchange for something else), is very different than having it taken from you.
If you disagree, argue with the actual facts of situation.
From the article, the monitoring is presumably only voluntary insofar as if you don't consent you are guaranteed an unfavorable outcome (you don't get the job). The hypothetical living room camera could be voluntary as well: If you don't consent it's because you're hiding something.
Doing something in exchange for a chance to get a job is 100%, completely, in every sense of the term voluntary.
If I don't pay Apple, they won't give me an iPhone. Am I involuntarily paying Apple for my iPhone?
As for the camera, a mafia-esque threat of "if you don't have a camera, we get very suspicious" by a government which has the power to prosecute and put people in jail, is incredibly coercive and horrifying.
Amazon is making you an offer, which if you refuse, leaves you no worse off than the status quo. If you accept their offer, there is potentially a job which you are apparently interested in, since you are applying.
To make a comparison like your comparison: Apple stole $500 from me when I bought my iPhone! Thieves!
Giving something up of your own free will (in exchange for something else), is very different than having it taken from you.
If you disagree, argue with the actual facts of situation.