If the location is the subject and I am free to exit or enter the scene without my presence affecting the creativity of the work, then I have far fewer objections. But a video in which _I_ become the subject, which moves to focus my actions, is far more objectionable.
How do you know they aren't filming you specifically[1], and why do you trust them?
[1] And don't say 'I'm not interesting enough', 'cos I don't believe you.
A bit besides the point, but my phone has a unique identifier associated with it that is constantly communicated to my operator. It also has tons of other tracking software I have no clue about. While this is something I'd prefer didn't exist, same logic applies here.
I'm not pro-surveillance, but pro realistic understanding of it. I know it's not great, but what can you do? Go around town filming people and creep them out thinking you're making a point when in reality you're just annoying people?
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, you, personally, are being tracked, and that traking will remain and may be actionable at any time in the future.
Just be sure you don't piss off a cop, otherwise he might just look you up on the database and see that those cameras you thought weren't watching you actually captured a number or minor infractions for which you will now be fined.
You know, I'll take that any day over some random weirdo coming to film me under the pretense of making a point.
I get it, the counter argument is that the stationary camera is no less intrusive. To which I counter that the stationary camera records my happenstance gross actions along with those actions of many others, I am literally lost in the noise. But the explicit camera on me records much finer detail of myself, and nobody else, there is no noise to be lost in.
Perhaps people who like attention do not see a problem being the center of attention. I personally don't mind if someone notices my presence but I do mind if they think that seeing me means that I can become the star of their next production.