In some abstract sense yes, but this doesn't mean that every moment of our lives when we leave our private home should be surveilled and recorded and analyzed for potential use by whoever is in power at any point in the future.

Not suggesting you are saying that, but there's a spectrum of what it means for behavior to be public.

Sure, my location is technically public in the sense that sometimes people see me when I go somewhere. But I would much rather not always be recorded with gps location and video and audio to be stored forever and available to those in power.

The Supreme Court has weighed in on this with a little more nuance in their decision in Katz v. United States:

“What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.”

This “lack of privacy in public” absolutism would mean that there would never be certiorari granted for these types of cases in the first place.

Reductionist at best, IMO

See also United States v Jones, Carpenter v United States

I'm not one to promote AI, but when you suck at summarizing this bad, maybe give that a shot.

You have lots of privacy in public.

You don't get to legally conceal the identifying marker attached to a two-ton murder weapon on wheels that you either own, rented, borrowed or stole.

That's it.

My comment even mentions that you have options if you want an unmarked wheeled vehicle for staying as private as possible while yet locomoting at a decent pace.

I don’t think the lack of privacy of the commons means it’s fine to stalk people.