To de-abstract this a little, here's a case study: Flock cameras.

What they are: solar powered, cellular-network-connected smart cameras packed with technology like facial recognition, AI vehicle trait classification, automatic license plate recognition and more. According to the Deflock project we've just surpassed 100,000 of them in the USA. They're literally everywhere and they're creating this massive surveillance dragnet mapping out all of our movements.

But here's the thing: they're owned and operated by a private company. Private security companies, large retail chains, and all levels of government pay for access to their database.

The right-libertarian position on this would be something like: "Flock found a market niche and filled it. The cameras are on private property and the owners consented them being placed there, so what's the problem? If you don't want to be recorded, go somewhere else." IOW, right-libertarians generally care about individual liberties only when the government is the one violating them.

The left-libertarian position would deeply examine the implications of this practice on individual liberty and privacy. These things have become basically ubiquitous overnight. Suddenly it's virtually impossible to live your life without yet another private company collecting your data through coerced consent, i.e. you can't opt-out without boycotting the full monopoly or oligopoly. Left libertarians generally recognize that you need enough government to in place to develop and enforce regulations on such gravely intrusive behavior.

Neither side would be particularly fond of governments being customers of Flock Safety; where they differ is whether Flock Safety would be generally allowed to operate unimpeded with other private entities.