I can help explain. People are threatening physical violence because they see surveillance as akin to violence. They know that you are not the only one with access to the camera, that corporations or police could see them through your camera. They know that corporations and police often abuse their power and harrass people who legally oppose them.

These people feel they have no other options but violence because automatic surveillance is forced onto societies regardless of the people's vote. They believe violence is bad, but surveillance is worse, and since surveillance can lead to violence by the state, people would rather be violence towards surveillance tech now before they are threatened for whatever the government decides is illegal that day.

I agree with you that violence is often not the answer, and that discourse and voting is the right way. Where we might disagree is how well discourse and voting works when both are manipulated for selfish gain. Violence is a last resort, never a first, and it's important to understand why people choose violence because it shapes society so drastically.

I wouldn't punch a person wearing smart glasses, but I support both other people breaking their property and pushing to make that property illegal. Laws serve society, not the other way around.