Flock you.
There's quite a bit of chatter in the news about Flock cameras around the U.S.A. Basically a company providing surveillance to cities here, there, and everywhere. The idea, of course, is to reduce crime. Instead it seems to be increasing it, as people don't like the idea of cameras watching them all the time.
So the main argument against the cameras is "invasion/loss of privacy." There's a big legal flaw in that because "public" spaces are by definition not private. There have been many legal cases over the years about this, especially in respect to photographing in public areas. The usual result is that if it can be seen by anyone walking by it's okay to take the picture. The trouble comes with the use of that picture, and that's the problem with the Flock cameras as well.
You see there are reports that the imaging collected is being misused. Including police officers tracking exes, local data being handed over to other enforcement agencies, disreputable persons scanning for images based on race, and incomplete/incorrect license plate analysis leading to the arrests of innocents. All problems which the company assures us there are safeguards to prevent.
You know the problem with that? If you have to put such safeguards in place you are admitting there's a potential problem to begin with and ignoring the historical fact that criminals tend to get around safeguards.
Which brings us to the real problem with these surveillance cameras. It's not the violation of privacy, because that doesn't exist under these circumstances to begin with. It's the violation of the right to be presumed innocent. Instead of the cameras supplying images to be scrutinised after a crime has been committed, they are actively looking to see if any law is being broken at any minute.
In the all-seeing, ever-present eye of Big Brother you are a criminal waiting to be caught.