And if not, its existence is highly overdue.
Where tracking of privacy-sensitive activities of individuals in public, traditionally required exhaustible resources (as in agents physically shadowing targets); cameras and other sensors can (and will) track said activities of any individual in public, regardless of being targeted (not that targeting individuals is possible to begin with: only after collection, one can pinky swear not to look at, or discard information regarding non-targets).
The main difference being, one traditionally having effective “expectation of privacy” in public (unless specifically targeted by authorities: having sufficient reason to allocate resources to the individual), but in the context of modern technology we lost the benefit of the doubt. And unless never setting a foot outside again, any arguably more incriminating personal data (naked in the shower versus protesting an oppressive government) should be “expected” to be collected.
So because “privacy” is historically tainted with said demoralization, any efforts to defend “privacy” in “public” (where one can truly no longer have expectation thereof) are doomed to fail. Therefore I wish to have a term, without ambiguity introduced by any subjective matter (that is “expectancy”: the individual’s versus a typically biassed judge’s); one that makes no distinction between personal data being collected in private, or in public.
Privacy? Dignity? Self-determination?
The first is subject to the “expectation of privacy” demoralization, while the others don’t really seem quite specific enough. In another thread on this post “anonymity” was brought up, and in the context of public surveillance, it’s a pre-established term that thus far, most closely matches the requested quality. So one could argue that public surveillance lowers their level of anonymity in public, potentially leading to details of one’s private life to be uncovered.