It might be important to note that government owned cameras are by definition pointing to public property (where everybody passes), whereas private cameras shou

It might be important to note that government owned cameras are by definition pointing to public property (where everybody passes), whereas private cameras should be targeted at some private property (enforced by law, at least in some countries). If this distinction remains true in practice, it would at least seem that privately owned cameras are "morally" a bit more in their right. (You submit to the house rules when visiting vs being filmed when doing something that is nobody's business, like just passing by) Regarding the "processing" argument in the original article. It seems to me that government owned cameras are a bigger concern, if we assume that they can provide a general combined view (while privately owned cameras provide a lot of isolated views). EDIT: spelling