Actually you're the one looking fucking stupid, here.

The idea that we don't have the right to privacy in public was first argued in regards to legitimate use of cameras in public and when a video maker does (or doesn't) need to get your permission.

If you're caught on camera incidentally during a news story about a house fire. Or you're in the background of a surveillance tape of a robbery they're showing on the news. Or traffic cameras, or cop dash cams. Legitimate uses where public interest is a priority.

If a filmmaker is shooting a scene on location (for an example of the other direction), and they happen to catch some members of the public, they need to get those people to sign a consent form, or else they can't use the footage. This is the law, I believe, EVERYWHERE that has ever argued this in court.

So yes, while there are legitimate reasons that a person's privacy is considered able to be suspended (such as news in the public interest), contributing to some incel's spank-bank isn't one of those reasons. And you're a fucking idiot if you don't grasp that concept.

So you agree you have a right to privacy in public? How are you soooo close to getting it and then losing the fucking plot.