I agree with you. In public, anything goes, otherwise it is not a principled law and it will be amended with exception in all sorts of direction based on whoever has the best lobbyists.<p>As a libertarian I think presumption of privacy in public can&#x27;t exist even for people&#x27;s DNA if they spit on the street, touch a light post, or otherwise leave their DNA behind.<p>We can&#x27;t go around arresting people for scrutinizing public spaces no matter what they collect, and likewise no one should have an expectation of privacy in public.<p>You&#x27;re being down-voted because the old-timers in this forum aren&#x27;t smart enough to debate or think issues through, so they react on emotion. Can you imagine if there were no down-vote button? Those people would explode in rage, as irrational people (those who can&#x27;t argue) are prone to do. They can&#x27;t deal with entertaining dissenting thoughts without causing harm to their interlocutor.<p>By the way, the person above who implied you&#x27;ve &quot;produced bullshit ideas&quot; has only contributed with a fallacy ad antiquitatem (appeal to tradition): &quot; Use of surveillance equipment, especially the hidden kind, <i>has always had a higher standard</i>, even in public.&quot; (emphasis mine). Yes, maybe it has always been that way, so what? That&#x27;s not an argument, that&#x27;s a fallacy. I told you the old-timers here can&#x27;t argue.