I am not worried. I merely make the observation that such surveillance is of limited value both as a deterrent and as a subsequent aid in the prosecution of criminals. Having been a prosecutor for a number of years, I can tell you that defense attorneys use these photos, in conjunction with temporo mandibular experts to testify that the photo, even if it resembles the defendant, is not him. Such surveillance does not deter and is generally counterproductive to the prosecution. It undercuts the eyewitnesses.
You may choose to overlook the potential for abuse, but it is there. During the 2000 presidential election, some Democratic operative got hold of a picture of President Bush, who was then a private citizen, picking his nose at a baseball game. And it was put up on the internet. I think that was an invasion of his privacy. And you can imagine how surveillance cameras used in public places, the subset of which are ever expanding, could be tools of similar abuse. The point is they neither make you safer nor are they helpful in convicting the defendant. So why use them?
Was he picking a booger? Did a fly or a bee go up his nose? Was his finger on the side of his nose and the angle of the photo made it look like he was mining for gold?
Half these idiots would take one look at the pic and believe for the rest of their lives that they saw incontrovertible evidence that W picked a big greenie in public. Half of them (yes you Kevin) would further believe he then took and tossed it at someone sitting in front of him.