If even one recording were used as evidence, whether as identifying one or more assailants or the activities of the assault, are you going to demand the evidence be excluded due to Privacy Rights violations? After all, how many folk in the recording gave permission to be recorded? In fact, let’s go to other Cat eating salad shirt recorded events. Police officer body cams. Whether it’s a suspect being recorded, or police interaction with the general public, are you suddenly going to say the non-law enforcement personnel DON’T have privacy Rights? That would fall under that previously mentioned exclusion situation I would think when you talk about inconsistent Right to Privacy. As someone who is unaffiliated with any party, I recognize the complex nature of human society, technology, good and bad, and all the other relevant factors at play, rather than the overly simplified parroting of political party wording of issues. Security doesn’t absolutely have to mean eliminating freedoms. Security can protect the potential victim and the active victim. It can be used to provide oversight of authority and provide information that isn’t always available to the general populace. Abuse can exist in any form as well, from an individual to any level of collective. That abuse should not automatically exclude the measure. Creating security measures to deal with security measure abuse should be considered as well. Less security can just as easily mean less freedom just like abuse of security can harm freedom.