Right next to my apartment building is a crosswalk that crosses a fairly busy street. The crosswalk is well-marked, and it has a sign in the median specifically stating that stopping for pedestrians is required by law. In the time I've lived here I've nearly been hit by cars several times on this crosswalk, and I've witnessed countless people almost get hit here as well. Once I saw a pedestrian yell at the driver, and the driver yelled back that they didn't have to stop because "I don't have a stop sign".
I noticed recently that the city installed a flock camera pointed directly at this crosswalk, and while I'm generally opposed to this kind of surveillance, and I wish they would implement other measures to make this safer, I really would love nothing more than for drivers speeding through here and not stopping for pedestrians to get ticketed. It's unclear still whether that's actually happening (and not that it matters once you're dead), but I'm finding myself empathizing with the argument for more surveillance for the first time in my life.
I wish opponents would realize this more - that there are very legitimate use-cases for stuff like this, to be actually helpful and used to improve society.
What I wish proponents would accept is that it won't just be used for those use-cases.
It's not an easy situation, especially when you consider the myriad other issues that feed into this.
Unfortunately, as much as I empathize with your position, as long as there is so much potential for abuse, and so long as trust in public institutions continues to erode, I cannot support stuff like this.
In Shanghai there's lots of strobe lights on major intersections to presumably take clean license plate pictures of people driving against traffic after an illegal turn. Pretty plausible it significantly increases compliance.