that's craaazy

Cameras are free speech and are a shield against property crimes and assault.

Our building complex has rampant break-ins. We've needed more cameras for years and we're only now starting to add them.

Worse, someone recently someone set fire to the roof which caused a 12-hour long debacle. Not sure what the "#-of-alarms fire" ranking it was, but several people lost their homes to months of remediation and they tore apart the roof.

Cameras would have implicated the contractor responsible (we know it was a contractor, but there were no cameras or access logs).

One theory as to why the number of violent crimes is going down in this country isn't that we just de-leaded the water and taught better conflict de-escalation, but that there are cameras and smartphones everywhere.

All of that said - camera networks in the hands of an all-powerful state are bad.

The state does not need access to these systems outside of a rigorously documented system with proper judicial oversight. We need regulations and even civil liberties that limit the scope of state access and state dragnets to these camera networks.

But individuals, companies, and communities should be at liberty to hire surveillance tech to protect their persons and their property.

Most states have a version of it.

This is true. I often forget because my state has an equivalent law.

Which is one of many reasons why privatizing government services probably isn't a good idea.

You could also make different laws but that's probably not going to happen. Think about just about any of the important laws that we rely on for a stable and just society in the USA, and consider that most or all of them would be politically unviable if they didn't already exist. Including FOIA itself. Not a good situation.