> Recordings captured by CCTV aren't typically being made with the intent to publish them for entertainment (yes, some CCTV footage shows up on YouTube and so o

> Recordings captured by CCTV aren't typically being made with the intent to publish them for entertainment (yes, some CCTV footage shows up on YouTube and so on, but it's not the normal case). I'd argue that most photographs/recordings made by individuals while in public aren't taken with the intent to publish them for entertainment either. There are some notable social media accounts that do it, but even as more of our personal photos/videos end up on social media that's not the normal case and shouldn't be the assumption. Generally, I'm not a big fan of people harassing others or acting like assholes in public no matter what they're doing and there are some youtubers who do try to antagonize people to get a rise out of them for entertainment/views which I think is shameful. When it comes to the cameras found in public buildings (like a DMV, court house, city hall, etc) those recordings are public records and that footage can be requested by anyone through FOIA and similar open records laws. While I wouldn't expect that I will end up on youtube just for doing something like renewing my drivers license, I should be aware that it is possible and legal. Corporations and data brokers can also request that footage to mine for personal data to sell. For privately installed/operated cameras that footage can also be published and used for entertainment or any number of other things depending on the whims of the owner and the terms of any third parties managing that footage (amazon, google, etc). For example, someone caught in view of a ring camera while walking their dog on a public sidewalk might find themselves on youtube with a title like "Terrible person doesn't clean up their dog's poop" if the camera owner is tired of them not picking up after their pet and wants to shame them publicly for it. Or, perhaps amazon will use facial ID to identify them, note when and where they were detected, what kind of clothes they were wearing, who they were with, what they were doing, how healthy/fit they appear, what kind of pet they have, how often they are seen there, etc. The information Amazon gathered this way could be used to push dog food ads at the dog walker weeks later, or used in almost any way that Amazon thinks might benefit Amazon including selling that data/footage to police (with or without the camera owner's knowledge or consent) or other third parties. I'd like to think that I can walk my dog without worrying about being misidentified as a wanted criminal, or being publicly shamed, or being scrutinized by companies who want to take advantage of me, but that's not the world we live in. I sure don't think this is an ideal situation and I'd love to see some protections for people's privacy so long as they don't interfere with people's right to take photographs/videos for personal use, educational use, limited commercial use, citizen journalism, personal protection, etc. I think it would be hard to create those protections though and even harder to police violations. Especially when multiple parties get involved. My suspicion is that we're more likely to see laws that restrict private individuals from filming/photographing for legitimate uses while exceptions get carved out for the corporations and governments that are a much larger threat to our privacy/security rather than the other way around.