Rather than a difference, I can mention a similarity (at least for my region: EU) between CCTV constantly watching employees work and this system constantly wat

Rather than a difference, I can mention a similarity (at least for my region: EU) between CCTV constantly watching employees work and this system constantly watching employees work: They're both illegal. You can have cameras film employees, for example when they take things out of a safe. Or if there has been theft and you monitor the area where this took place. There has to be a purpose, you can't simply film people do their work as a blanket measure all day long, that's invasive, unethical with the ethics I was brought up with, and illegal in any country where the GDPR applies and perhaps also the European Convention on Human Rights since this might be based on article 8 (privacy) (fun fact: Russia signed the ECHR, though I rather doubt they'd care if they were actually sued in the ECHR). It's similar on public roads: you can't simply film anyone who dares to walk over a sidewalk or drive over a road near you. But you can if there have recently been cars set on fire and there is a direct reason to film your car that is parked on the street. There just has to be a reason that trumps the right to go about your own damn business without constantly being watched. Amazon honestly might have a case if it truly improves safety by a lot, or if they employ this for particular drivers in some higher risk class perhaps. But it's also invasive, so they have to have a good reason and apply the least-invasive measure that achieves the same effect.