However, I do care if the cameras are feeding into a huge system for analytics and data sharing. What if I cough 2x more than the average person? Does that get tracked, stored, and sold to a health insurance data supplier that ranks me as high risk for respiratory problems?
Does the machine learning algorithm that analyzes footage rank me as a potential thief if the database says I hang out in a lot of poor neighborhoods?
These will turn into class profiling systems that will amplify everything in your life so much that whatever your economic status is when you're born is what it'll be when you die.
Honest question.
Having a card is just as unavoidable as needing to go to the shopping centre to buy groceries, so this isn't even a case where "if you don't like it don't use it" applies
I'd presume if umvi had rejected the groundwork reasons for privacy, they would have made a comment more like:
"What bad thing are we asserting would happen if they created this data set? What demonstrable harm can you show from even an omnibus dataset? Let alone what this mall is creating?"
An example of data that is harmless on its own but harmful at scale is license plate reading. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/we-know-where-yo... a few points tells you that a person is in a city, a few more tells you where they live, a few more tells you where they work, a few more tells you where the shop, a few more tells you who their friends are, who their associates are, if they're seeing someone on the side, if their going to any gatherings, if they tend to frequent red light districts... ect.
In this way, as data is aggregated, the picture of a given person slides from blurry to clear. And a clear picture of someone is an invasive and dangerous picture of someone.
As a result, aggregation of "public" data like this is something privacy advocates generally resist. It's not that there's is some line that's been crossed.