I'm not sure why you're ignoring the central point I'm making about scale. One guy having a camera pointing out of his doorbell is different from Amazon being able to do whatever they want with the footage from something like one in five US homes. Systems are more than the sum of their isolated parts.

▲

ericmay an hour ago | parent [-]

I was trying to understand where your opposition was - the operator of the device, the number of devices, or perhaps who and how information was accessed.

Maybe I should've been more direct. In your view, what is the appropriate usage for camera devices in public spaces?

	▲	ThrustVectoring 32 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		All public cameras are a cost to privacy for the benefit of the operator, its just that the identity of the operators and the extensiveness and data centralization change the magnitude of the cost and the proper response. If my friend has a doorbell camera and I don't like being recorded by him every time I visit his house, I can just not visit his house. Similarly, if Target has in-store surveillance cameras, I can just not shop there. If driving anywhere has me logged multiple times in Flock's network, I can't just stop driving, and even if I did they track pedestrians and bluetooth signals too. In short my opposition is to all of it, but some scenarios are clearly far worse for privacy than others. Doing something unusual that has your neighbors privately chuckling at their surveillance footage is less bad than doing something unusual that has Target's loss protection following you and making you feel uncomfortable, which is less bad than doing something unusual that has a police officer decide to "randomly" stop your car and attempt to search it, which is less bad than doing something unusual that has a SWAT team kicking down your door and arresting you.