(n.b. the inside of a store is not a public space, so a bit of a bad example...)
Outside, surveillance cameras are (supposedly) there for security. If the camera footage was used for other purposes then it would obviously be a problem. If the CCTV operator uploaded fun clips of people of the street to youtube then they would be in the wrong.
Once again, it comes down to manners, and not technology.
For instance, if a high-res camera was set up outside in public and recorded 'public' but hard-to-see stuff, such as numbers visible on the front of your credit card, or text messages on the screen of your phone, do you still think that would be acceptable? It's in public, after all...
It's not whether any situation is good or not, it's what is a direct consequence of the technology and the laws we have. If you want freedom of expression and the Internet, then this is something you have to adapt to.
If you're going to ask "But why does the First Amendment mean that my public behavior can be for all to see and hear?"...I don't think the principle is much different than it is with photography. I can go out and take photos on Times Square and not have to worry about getting everyone's permission before I upload it on the Internet, even if such a photo inevitably damages someone's privacy (perhaps I inadverdently capture someone on his way to a strip club?)
Even Google blurs out things from street view... all of which is in public view.
Our difference here is that as far as I can tell, your viewpoint is a bit of a fatalistic one - 'this is something you have to adapt to'. I am saying that this is not true. Just because something is possible does not make it right, and we don't have to abdicate our sense of what is right simply because technology has progressed and made more things possible.
This actually bolsters my point. Google blurs out faces because a) its product is to show streets, not faces and b) because Google realizes not blurring out faces will make the public hostile to them.
The key to this is technology. Obviously, good technology is what allows Google to map images to places and to do so at a scale that captures most of the industrialized world. This makes many people uncomfortable as it gives the impression that Google is all-seeing all the time, when the reality is that such images are so time-delayed as to have no surveillance benefit. Yet, there's no need for Google to fight this since their product is images of the street, not of random passersby.
The less-obvious facet of technology here is that Google has the tech to blur faces en masse. If Google had to blur images out by hand, do you think they'd do so without specific requests first?
Similarly, if there was a technology that existed that insta-blurred everyone's faces in a random photo via a master database of opt-ins and advanced facial recognition, it's feasible that photographers would be required to use it , in some nations. But as that tech is a long ways off (it's not the tech that's hard, it's that database), the U.S. courts have found it better to let people take photos unhindered rather than chill free speech by leaving open the possibility that you could be sued for taking photos of public activity.
To go back to the original topic...you're right, I am being fatalistic. But I'm also being realistic and I'm also considering the greater framework of laws here. So I throw the question back to you: what is your proposed solution to the problem other than hoping that everyone obeys on the honor system? In my opinion, there is no legislation that could be passed that would not infringe on free speech at large.
Outside, surveillance cameras are (supposedly) there for security. If the camera footage was used for other purposes then it would obviously be a problem. If the CCTV operator uploaded fun clips of people of the street to youtube then they would be in the wrong.
Once again, it comes down to manners, and not technology.
For instance, if a high-res camera was set up outside in public and recorded 'public' but hard-to-see stuff, such as numbers visible on the front of your credit card, or text messages on the screen of your phone, do you still think that would be acceptable? It's in public, after all...