> The fact is that people in public areas can and should expect to be filmed

Says who? I certainly don't agree with this. It's a societal decision whether or not we want or need video surveillance, which is very different from some random dude filming me with his smartphone. Evidence on whether or not video surveillance is _effective_ is also, at the very least, inconclusive [1] and highly depends on location.

So no, I don't think people should expect to be filmed by their government or its contractors at all, _especially_ not in public places :)

[1]: https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/surv...

What does that link tell us about the effectiveness of monitoring mammals with cameras?

> which is very different from some random dude filming me with his smartphone

Not that I disagree, but to fix it you need to make it different in a way that you can write down in a law -- something better than "I know it when I see it" -- and you need to keep the negative externalities limited [0].

A law like that seems like it basically wants to codify the level of privacy a typical citizen in 1910 (or 1850 or even 1970) might have enjoyed. Before we had our current level of networking, storage, and computing power, we didn't have to worry about things like "some random dude filmed me with his smartphone" (almost always not a problem) transforming into "every video is automatically uploaded to an AI surveillance tool" (a potential problem -- even if the video itself is "legal", an aggregation of those videos paints a picture of whether you're pregnant, your food preferences, whether you should be afraid of being seal-team-sixed by God-Emperor Trump, ...).

The ability to take more invasive measurements throws another wrench in things. Laws regulating videos and security feeds haven't kept up with the technology improving to capture more sensitive data than before. It's fine if my security cameras accidentally capture some of your house and activities 24/7. Assume I'm not automatically uploading those to a central service *cough* ring doorbell *cough* .... It's not great if I intentionally aim more cameras at you (often legal). It's worse if I make them public (often legal). Is thermal imaging to get an idea of which rooms you're in okay (often legal, less so if you're the police)? What about using wifi for imaging [1] to get a fuzzy view of you in a bath (similarly, often legal)? Can I hover a drone outside all your windows at an angle to try to peek through gaps in the blinds (mostly illegal, though the police still try -- FAA isn't the only governing entity here even though their rules mostly allow things like that)? What if I'm not violating your airspace and use an ultra-zoom lens (mostly legal)?

[0] Anti-recording laws tend to make it harder to record things you ought to be able to. That can be direct (police using their power to physically block you from recording their abuse, using the existence of anti-recording laws as enough of an excuse that qualified immunity will protect them regardless of how badly those laws are interpreted), indirect (your phone physically not letting you record debt collectors breaking the law in CA, even with consent from the collector, just because your phone knows that CA is 2-party consent), chilling (especially if the law is a bit vague, it gives well-funded actors yet another way to bankrupt you when they're caught breaking the law by your recording -- first trying to sue you for the illegal video), ....

[1] I've seen better articles and better performance, but this seems fine: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/wi-fi-routers-used-to-dete...