"That's unreasonable" isn't an argument. What's reasonable is decided by society. New technologies may change what's possible, and make something that was ok before the means to achieve something entirely new.

If, for example, these gadgets, or existing security cameras started to pool their data, run (accurate) face-detection on it, and start publicising everyones' location history online, I'm pretty sure most people would object to that–even those that previously had no problem with their image being recorded by the CCTV at the gas station, or the tourist taking a photo that included them.

It is an argument, what a "reasonable person" thinks is a standard judicial system consideration

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

You have no expectation of privacy in a public space, and the courts have agreed with that many times

https://www.wired.com/2010/09/public-privacy/

That's far more simplistic than what the law actually says (where "law" is the collection of statutes and judicial interpretations).

As an example:

http://resources.uscannenbergmedia.com/2016/08/videotaping-a...

"Remember, even if you’re in public, you cannot record conversations between two people unless you have their permission. This includes conversations that you’re one of the parties to. If one person in the conversation can reasonably expect his or her conversation to be confidential, this standard applies."

If you're having a private conversation in a public park, then it is probably illegal for somebody else to record you.

Driving is a different question. Personally I think since a license plate is literally meant to publicly identify your car, a reasonable person should expect it to be recorded. But my guess is this will go to SCOTUS at some point, since privacy is increasingly being invaded in unanticipated ways by private companies.

That's not really a response to matt4077's argument, which is that what a "reasonable person" may think can change based on changed circumstances such as development of new technological possibilities.

each neighborhood owns their data and they would have to opt-in to any type of data sharing between neighborhoods.

our goal isn't to build a big-brother system. we believe that if you are on a public road there isn't a perceived expectation of privacy.

Depends on where you live. In Germany any CCTV recording of a public place is automatically illegal. There’s a handful of exceptions (for example, for the parliament), but generally, this holds true.

Opt-in is what’s legally required, and should be the default.

How can all the people passing before the camera to opt in?

That's rather much the point, they can't. Therefore the service would be illegal in Germany.

Sometimes things are illegal and you can't get around it. Just because the company spent a lot of effort on it doesn't mean anything.

Alexro, there are clear and large signs about the cameras at the entrance to our neighborhoods.

Our neighborhoods are not large public roads, they are typically 100-400 home communities. You would never have to enter the community.

Exactly. That’s why you don’t put up cameras in the first place.

So only the government can record what's happening, and if private citizens or companies do so they are shamed and jailed?

The government can’t do that either, they’s the point (except for a handful of rare exceptions).

The police can’t even film protests to identify protestors.

You're saying the German government has no video cameras on any traffic intersections / public areas period?

Unless there is a specific situation that there is a threat there, and a warrant for that situation, no.

For traffic situations there are specialized systems that open a physical filter in front of a camera lens only if someone is detected to be speeding, and the camera is then limited to that lane, for that short moment.