Public monitoring: Assumed criminality
Every once in a while something comes up about cameras monitoring this or that public place. And people, including myself, are offended by the idea. Others, often gleefully, point out that in public one can have no expectation of privacy, so why should anyone give a rip about a camera? Well, why do I?
"What do you have to hide?" That assumption is part of it. Why does the idea of a camera monitoring a public place bother me? It bothers me because it makes an assumption, and the assumption is one I find very insulting: You cannot be trusted. You are a child who must be watched. You will only act honorably if you believe you are being watched.
In some cases a camera recording things isn't bad. It's widely accepted that we will be recorded when visiting a bank. There is a trade-off and for a bank it works. While most people can be trusted, bank robberies are sufficiently harmful that recording is seen as reasonable. In a store, a similar argument can be made regarding shoplifting. No sense in honest people paying for (more of) the misdeeds of shoplifters.
But place cameras everywhere, and what do you have? You have a prison. It might not have walls, but it still is one. Act good for the camera. What does that teach, if unwittingly? That when the cameras are off or where there are no cameras you can drop the act. Drop the act and be a jerk, be a criminal, be the very thing the cameras are intended to prevent. That is not the society in which I wish to live. I far prefer a society where people are trusted to do the right thing simply because it's the right thing to do. Maybe we don't have exactly that, but the idea of universal monitoring will destroy what we have of that.
The same argument goes for stores that post guards at the door. Stop and show that your bag's contents matches your receipt. You don't have anything to hide, right? No, I don't. But I can and do take my money elsewhere. Even a more expensive elsewhere. My dignity is worth far more than a mere discount. Sam's Club does this, which is the main reason I am not a member and don't go there. I avoid Best Buy for the same reason. They already have the cameras, no need to be insultingly intrusive.
The anti-camera bit does not apply to ordinary people simply taking pictures for their own amusement. Why not? They aren't making the insulting assumption that I cannot be trusted. In fact, they are making the opposite assumption: that I can be trusted not to screw up their shot. I like that.