[beeflet]

>Making observations at scale is categorically different than manual observations.

No it isn't. It's evidenced by the fact that you will need to decide some exact scale at which surveillance becomes illegal and under which it is legal

>When there's a dispute about what's illegal, you have it resolved by the courts like every other law.

Okay, but what ought they resolve to? That is what we are debating.

[ndsipa_pomu]

> need to decide some exact scale at which surveillance becomes illegal and under which it is legal

Surveillance of specified individuals should be allowed, but just random surveillance of the public should be declared illegal except for very particular events and purposes (e.g. searching people for entry to a music gig). If there is public surveillance in an area, it should be made clear with signs etc unless it's for the express purpose of locating specified individuals (e.g. tracking a criminal's movements on public transport).

[spectralista]

No, you are simply wrong but ignorance of scaling properties is the spirit of the day.

I suspect in the future a word will evolve for the stupidity of believing if a person can walk 3 miles in an hour then that scales to walking 500 miles in a week.

I encounter this form of stupidity all the time.