I don't think "public" would qualify in this case. Or at least it would be severely in dispute.

In the USA you can film whatever you want in public but if you target and follow someone while filming them you open yourself up to harassment or stalking charges. The flock network does something similar and this article is literally about police officers using it to stalk exes.

Even flock’s own employees (including the VP) accessed cameras stationed at a children’s gymnasium. They claim it was for a sales pitch but who knows. The names of the cameras imply they’re inside the facility, not on the street corner.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/flock-safety-employees-w...

Ah, yes, the 'public' space of a paid-for monitoring service, most likely accessed from private domiciles. One you use to track random citizens without their knowledge or consent. To act like this is equivalent to taking a photo of something in person is irresponsible and downright dangerous.

This is far more similar to stalking than just public viewing. If you followed somebody around and took pictures of their car and their person, just because, you'd likely end up with a restraining order or stalking charges.

I doubt the founders of your country predicted private companies being able to easily mass surveil citizens without their knowledge & sell this data to the highest bidder. You forget that this data isn't just sold to government agencies. It's also sold to.. Lowe's? Random HOAs (Home Owner Associations)? Your local big box retail store?