This is like the "why drive if it's so dangerous" fallacy. We trade cost for value, downsides for upsides, risk for reward. Cars and phones are highly valuable to normal people. Virtually all people do not experience immediate, constant, concrete benefits from public camera surveillance. And this is not even to mention that Flock cameras are more abused than phones (although scale makes that subjective, it's kind of apples-to-oranges right now).

Analogies are distracting. They are rhetorical junk food. Make an argument directly supporting Flock cameras - don't just say "it's like phones".

> Well, we need laws and oversight to stop these actions.

Do you think this hasn't been tried?

We have laws on stalking. We've tried to rein in cops.

https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/mister-gotcha-...

My phone wasn't designed to stalk other people. These systems are.

We have laws and oversight surrounding phone surveillance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawful_interception

Just like you say, it still gets abused both within and outside the government (eg. Salt Typhoon) because surveillance inherently threatens society.