The government also owns the sidewalks, parks, waterways, the airspace, the RF airwaves, and other public land. As such, it can monitor and enforce the acceptable use of this property.
The US government also claims the right to surveillance on private land (up to the house) as defined in Open Fields ruling of 1924.
https://www.agweb.com/news/business/farmland/unbounded-gover...
In addition, the freedom to take photographs of anyone at any time in public (and on public space) is allowed.
https://www.aclusocal.org/en/photographers-rights
The government does not own the Internet, and the US government handed over control in 2016.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-government-no-longer-...
Some surveillance on the Internet is legal/allowable.
https://www.privacyaffairs.com/internet-surveillance/
Anyone want to add to this list or critique?
The followup question is, what public records law lets FDOT decline disclosing anything about tracking?
The author's position is:
> And the state mustn’t be shielded from releasing information about what the system is, how it tracks our data, who gets access to it, and what protections we have for that information. The system is paid for by the public, and those overseeing it are elected by the public, so there is no law, excuse, or reason for the Florida government to be hiding this information.
While you are right about 'no guarantee of privacy when in a public space', one of the points is "The laws, which are nonexistent, should be very strict about who can access this data, and how it can be used." They can define what is not acceptable use of this information.
Anyone want to link the story of the guy who was having issues with the local PD having his house thermal scanned? And then..."died"?