“Well, she may not have a case for damages, but for being annoyed, probably.”

When do we get to sue the entire right wing?

I suppose if her face had been clearly visible, it would be something – but without her coming forward and blubbering at the camera, I’d’ve never had a chance of recognizing her.

However, she is completely disingenuous. She says (at least in one interview) how she was embarrassed and wanted to get out of there as quickly as possible (that would be my response as well) but then later gets all weepy that no one came to her aid. Who did she expect to come to her aid? She laments that mall security didn’t show up before she left, but how did she expect them to find her? or why did she think they should show up? For all we know no one was watching the tape when it happened and security only found out about it after the fact, like from the store employee she told.

That rather depends on what one means by ‘public space’. Malls are privately owned, and one can be charged and convicted of trespass under certain circumstances, such as failing to leave after being requested to do so. So, it’s not public in the sense that a street or a park might be considered public. A mall is perhaps better thought of as being private open space (as distinct from private closed space, like a dwelling) rather than public space.

Expectations of privacy are a matter of degree. The purpose of security cameras in a mall is primarily one of, well, security. Notices informing people entering the mall of such are usually placed somewhere in the mall. Such notices (Conditions of Entry) usually don’t include a ‘lampooning’ clause. In that regard, one does have a reasonable expectation of some level of privacy: one consents to one’s image being recorded only for the purpose of maintaining effective security. Any use of security camera footage beyond that could be a violation of privacy.

It’s true. I read it on the internet!