Your scenario is flawed: a democratic government does not pass laws
The main problems with scenarios of this type is to assume that...
- the government passes laws
- the people do not care about privacy
Let us start with the second point. Authors that dream up this sort of scenario seem to think that they, and only they, but none of the people in their fictional world will ever hatch the thought "But what about privacy?", essentially reducing their whole population to mindless sheep.
Well that is the case then there is no problem because your fictional population do not care.
If they do care however, then that also solves the problem because then they will not let their government get any such wide- and far-reaching access to personal data.
This brings us to the first point. Do recall that the first thing that happens when you form a democracy is that you take legislative power away from the government and place it in the hands of the legislative assembly, i.e. parliament, congress, riksdag/Reichstag... whatever it is called in your country. Check the constitution of any democracy worth its salt and you will find very early on that it declares that power stems from the people, not from the government.
Example: the Swedish Instrument of Government
1 kap. Statsskickets grunder
1 § All offentlig makt i Sverige utgår från folket.
Chapter 1. The foundation of the constitution
Paragraph 1. All public power in Sweden stems from the people.
So the job of the government is not to decide over the people but to execute what the people — usually through their representatives — have decided. And the people usually are not very inclined to decide that the government should do things of that sort to them.
So when you say...
the government passed a law to legally gain all rights of access to every live feeds in the city
...you are essentially failing social science class because the government does not pass laws; the legislative assembly does.
If you want this sort of scenario then you have only two options:
Your lovely city is not part of a democracy but some kind of totalitarian rule that does not have the kind of legislative assembly that decides according to the will of the people. In that case privacy is most likely the least of your worries and as such you have a large underground movement already. If not, then the people are probably quite content and accept this kind of rule. Problem solved.
The people do not care about privacy. They are just fine with the authorities glimpsing what they do all the time and as such decided to grant them access to everything. And if so, this is the explicit will of the people. Problem solved.
Edit after critical comments
In the case of people that still wish for the possibility of privacy, there is the question of what provisos, exeptions and excemptions the legislative assembly provided when passing the law.
Did they really require that every inhabitable space must be monitored?
Did they really require that all personal data must be available at all times to all parties that have the least bit of curiosity in them?
If the answer is "Yes and yes, it is all or nothing", then I again say: this is not realistic, and the answer to the question is: you are out of luck, you cannot have privacy in the city. Because now you are in such a situation that even disconnecting yourself from the grid will flag you and direct attention to you. If you want privacy in this scenario you must leave the city, or evolve telepathy.
If you want to stick to the least bit of realism though, we should look at how privacy laws and personal data/integrity laws have evolved for the past 40+ years. There the trend is very clear that personal data is considered private and that you have the right to keep it that way, and only if the state can show they have due cause may they peek at that, which is then done under the process of checks and balances. And private actors must seek your permission to keep and process your data, and they may not cross-compile data with other actors.
So unless this trend is broken, there you have your privacy: the data is not universally available. We are already today considering your scenario as completely unacceptable from the start. Which means that when this law of yours is passed, there will be these kinds of safeguards.
Otherwise - as I said above - your only option is to leave the city or develop telepathy. And since the scenario is in the 22nd century CE, this is not unthinkable. Already today we have rudimentary brain-computer interfaces. Developing brain augmentation devices that allows you to communicate silenty, encrypted and obfuscated with others is next to an inevitability. Since you have not abolished Freedom Of Thought, there you may have your privacy.