An article published (or perhaps re-published) on Gizmodo notes a "trend" toward the prohibition of surveillance of police officers. The article focuses on the use of cameras that are not necessarily connected to the Internet, and seems to be intended to stir public outrage at the desire of the government to conceal corruption and abuse of authority, but it has broader implications for the "Internet of Things."
The article in question covers only one side of one argument, and it's fairly obvious that the correct conclusion is that videotaping police action is not only just, but socially beneficial in preventing the abuse of authority. But it would be interesting to cross-reference the remarks against others made by the same individuals when the cameras are turned around, and it is the state that is videotaping citizens.
And the same argument can be made, albeit with less passion, in any instance of surveillance: employers who spy on employees but prohibit employees from taking photographs in the workplace, merchants who use security cameras to observe shoppers but do not permit the same people to take video recordings inside their premises, etc. In each instance it's not merely the desire of one party to use surveillance, but to deny the same right to the other party.
Moreover, the same arguments are used by both sides. Regardless of who is videotaping whom, proponents will argue there is no expectation of privacy in most environments, that "honest" people should have no fear of being observed, and so on, whereas the opponents will argue that surveillance is an invasion of privacy, that the mere act of observation is a form or coercion, and so on.
It will be interesting to see how this shakes out, though it will probably take decades for there to be a legislative effort to consider the topic of surveillance in general, rather than getting tangled in the incidental details of a specific set of circumstances ... but if my guess is correct, we will return at last to the functional perspective.