Its wild, meta style glasses (explicitly not run by meta) could be such a boon. Police don't wear body cams, that's no matter, every other member of the public is wearing a body cam to record your abuse.

But, like everything it'll be a reflection of the society they find themselves: harvest data from the proles and harass women.

I'd wear a meta style frame (again explicitly not run by meta, probably locally) as a personal dash cam. But I don't want to be associated with meta or perverts.

If you think that this will apply to CCTV and surveillance I have a bridge to sell you...

Not worth killing street photography for

1. You're applying the technical terminology from The Highway Code, it's not clear that this applies here.
2. The leaflet itself shows no explanation of the terms "should" and "must" like there is in The Highway Code.
3. That kind of nuanced language really isn't appropriate in literature meant for people with a poor grasp of the English and English culture.
4. "Should not" and "can not" are not "legally different" - the terms have no formal legal definition, they're just used in The Highway Code like that. But The Highway Code is not written by the government, it's written by a private business called The Stationary Office. They don't come up with legal definitions, they provide a specific layman's explanation of the rules of the road, as defined in both legislation and case law.