[willy_k]

Because one scenario is more directly tied to potential (undesirable) uses of the photos, and more obviously doing something. If people saw consequences resulting from security cameras, they would pay more mind to them. People aren’t ignoring a security camera in a bathroom.

[autoexec]

I mean, when it comes to things like ring/nest cameras and ALPRs everybody is pretty upfront about the fact that all the footage they collect is going to be used against you in one way or another. It's pretty hard to get a more direct tie to potential (undesirable) uses. Amazon has made headlines after being sued for giving employees and contractors "unfettered" access to personal videos, and for allowing contractors to listen to people having sex, and for giving police access to the feeds without consent, but people are still buying them up and using them.

A street photographer is a much smaller threat. What's the worst some random person on a public street can do with your photograph? Compare that with the harm that can be done by a massive corporation with billions at their disposal who has been building a dossier on you for decades and who records you 24/7 and is determined to use that data in any way that makes them profit regardless of what you want or what the law says.