, , , sorry about your abusive ex, good that you had camera.

"nothing to hide" is based on the fallacious premise that if someone has something(s) that they don't want widely disseminated, they MUST be doing something wrong.
Have you noticed that virtually all folks who utter that fallacy are fully clothed while saying it ?

@FearlessFly that’s why I said in public versus in private as one assumes you are fully clothed in public.

@Killtheskyfairy . . . still a fallacy -- antithetical to (and the opposite of) Critical Thinking.

@FearlessFly then they better avoid England which has the most security cameras of all industrialized nations.

My ex husband accosted me in the supermarket even though I had a restraining order against him. He scared me so much I forgot to film him. Luckily the store had the whole interaction on tape. Should he have invoked privacy concerns for attacking me in front of the meat department?

@Killtheskyfairy . . . there is NO (reasonable) expectation of privacy in the (videotaped) supermarket (public).

My response(s) are intended to promote CT by avoiding fallacies.

Just the trying to make laws is still scary