As many First Amendment auditors have demonstrated, filming in public is a constitutionally protected activity, and their popular slogan, "You can't trespass my

As many First Amendment auditors have demonstrated, filming in public is a constitutionally protected activity, and their popular slogan, "You can't trespass my eyes," means that if something is visible from a public place (e.g. a sidewalk) it is also legal to film it. That means a citizen (or police officer) can stand on a public sidewalk in front of someone's house and film all they want. So what makes this utility-pole surveillance different? The cameras are placed in public (outside, on utility poles which presumably involve a public easement). They are not equipped with extreme telephoto lenses or infrared cameras. It is hard, in the abstract, to see how that is any different than a First Amendment auditor doing the same thing. Where I think it's arguably different is in the sustained, targeted nature of the activity. If one or more private citizens decide to film outside a person's house for 15-30 minutes as part of an audit or similar activity, yes it's probably annoying, but annoying doesn't mean illegal. But if they station themselves outside the house night and day, recording the comings and goings of the residents, I think that arguably rises to the level of stalking. To be clear, I don't think the surveillance cameras meet the legal definition of stalking, but they arguably have similar impact.