> one should be held to a different standard than the other.

harassing a worker is not the way to fix the problem. The worker has no agency to affect the changes desired by the harasser. It's an issue with the gov't, and needs civic procedures to change.

This behaviour is the same as harassing hospitality staff for bad prices. Harassers would be considered borderline committing terrorism if they go further.

The worker does have agency. They did not have to take a job installing mass surveillance systems. They're directly doing the bad thing, and the "harassers" are literally doing the same thing the worker is doing, but back to the worker.

It legally wasn't harassment. If it was, he would have not been let go. That word means a real thing and this was not it.

Filming them at work, or following them to the next job so you can film them at work, is not in any way, shape, or form "harassment".