Yes.
With respect, there's a good deal of survey evidence that suggests individuals are concerned about new technologies and their use for surveillance purposes when they do not see a legitimate public purpose. When I talk to audiences, including my students, and I begin to ask them questions about the capture of this personal information, the concerns increase the more they know about the way the technology might be used.
For example, you gave the instance of a video surveillance camera in a corner store. Okay. The general public sees that as a camera. I see it as a mechanism by which personal information is captured, which raises a whole bunch of other questions. How long is that information collected? Who might have access to that information? To whom might it be disclosed? What kind of technology is being used? Is it associated with facial recognition software and so on and so forth?
You have to drill down beneath the basic question about whether the surveillance is happening to find a whole range of very interesting and serious questions that any organization has to address, if it wants to capture personal information in that way. That, of course, is what the privacy legislation tries to get at. It does not say no, thou shalt not collect personal information. It says if you are going to collect personal information, you should be collecting it in a certain way to make sure there's a legitimate purpose and that the individuals about whom that information is collected have some rights associated with it.