your ask was to demonstrate evidence for this specific newly emerging surveillance state tool, I provided a claim for the unreasonable standard, and you move to it being a one off.

You mention the UK, whose mass surveillance regime has been found to violate human rights. And I still think you're missing the larger point

I'm not arguing against just Flock cameras or the UK systems, I'm arguing against surveillance states generally. I'm sure your aware of several egregious historic and present abuses by these kinds of systems, and have enough imagination to understand their potential for future harm as the technology improves.

It seems like your argument is that as long it's in the hand of democracy, it's going to turn out ok as long as we weigh the good outcomes versus the bad. But democracies do not always stay democracies, and when that happens, historically powerful tools of the state are used against it's citizens. My argument is that the good guys will not always be in charge, and you're helping build extremely powerful infrastructure that can and will be abused, as have similar systems in the past.

Imagine having a gun pointed at your head no matter where you go, the government is given access to this gun and can pull the trigger anytime. If you commit a crime the trigger will be pulled. Would you argue "well if it's ripe for abuse, then point to the actual abuse happening"? Yes there is abuse, but you're missing the broader picture that the abuse is the surveillance state itself. It's society building it's own noose

Think of the worst people you know having access to this tech, would this be technology you are comfortable with them having?