There may be no expectation of privacy in the sense someone may see you and take your picture.

There is an expectation you are not constantly tracked everywhere you go by a nationwide surveillance apparatus, that your location is not constantly monitored, indexed and shared. Unless you expect to live in an Orwellian distopia.

Actually, the supreme court ruled that police have to get a warrant to view cell tracking data and attach a location tracking device to cars.

Flock is a clever workaround that should be illegal, but before that can happens we can get them removed at the city council level.

Of course there is.

You can take notice of beautiful women in public. You cannot take upskirt photos.

You can eavesdrop on a conversation at the park. You cannot put mics under all the benches.

Privacy is a situational continuum of invasiveness. Just because there is no expectation of privacy from the state in using public roads does not mean we should tolerate corporations building profiles analyzing the comings and goings of citizens.

Do you agree with that, or are you just deferring to an overly simplified interpretation of the law?

No law is that simple. You can be photographed when you’re out in public most places, yet stalking is also illegal most places.

There was an implicit expectation that, although people could take your picture, there weren't a million people roaming around taking everyone's pictures all the time because it takes a few seconds to take someone's picture.

There should be. Other countries have one and they seem no worse off for it.

I have strong expectations, in fact; I need the state to respect that.

do you wear a skirt or a kilt? now about the no expectation of privacy in public ..

There should be.