Imagine this possible near future: Many property owners have installed smart doorbells and security systems with cameras. The data is being fed into aggregation systems and sold, just like clicks today. I can subscribe to an app on my phone for a few dollars a month (below the limit required to get formal approval in most organizations) that shows me where a face has been seen.
How will this not happen?
If a police officer can look up a suspect on Facebook, why couldn't he use one of many other services that are aggregating data?
A single man can record videos yes, but they can't record millions of videos and aggregate them into a searchable database. For that you need larger groups of people and a significant amount of infrastructure. You could absolutely limit the ability to do this without having to outlaw cameras or social media or anything like that.
Are you making some blanket assumption that laws can't have an impact on private businesses? Because that's clearly not true.
Databases of aggregated ALPR data exist and have economic value. Facebook exists and aggregates data. Can you elaborate on what kind of law you think should exist to prevent that?
Most laws depend on the concept of intent already so its not like you would have to outlaw security cameras or anything to enforce.
Anyone can personally purchase whatever they desire.
Because of this, the current battles that many anti-surveillance activists are fighting is in procurement and vendor/contractor policies, mostly at the city and county levels. Lots of West Coast cities and counties (Santa Clara, Oakland, Seattle, San Diego) have enacted all kinds of new bureaucratic hurdles on any public funds used to pay for surveillance. These include requiring RFPs with open competitive bidding, public hearings, testing and certification that it actually works with an acceptable false positive rate, and approval in a public vote by the city/county council.
The Nation has a good overview of this shift in tactics, which is also opposed by some progressives who take a more abolitionist stance to surveillance and say that they don't want it to be legitimized if it passes all the bureaucratic hurtles: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/mass-surveillance-...