This somehow doesn't violate any ethics concerning experimentation on humans?
That being said, that's essentially a "voluntary initiative" by these organizations implemented because they choose to follow these ethics guidelines. These ethics rules aren't universal or legally mandated for everyone so if a private company wants to do some unethical research with its own funds, if they don't want to publish the research but just use and sell it, then that company is not legally required or forced to follow any ethical restrictions. Within the limits of law, they can be as unethical as their owners are.
The solution to lack of ethics is legal restrictions and enforcement of them. A few USA states have limitations on facial recognition. In EU, GDPR would apply for a situation like this.
"I would not want my photograph being surrepticiously collected and used by an entity/organization for an indefinite period of time, stored in an indeterminate number of locations, and with unknown goals that may be related to mass surveillance; therefore, I will not perform that same action against others"
And based on others HN comments, even if it's not the majority opinion, it is not an exceptional opinion.
I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.
"In the United States, a right to privacy has not ever been used by courts to restrict photography of people in public places. Not even once."