The legal choices and mechanisms we have are based on built in assumptions about how easy and expensive something is, and this is especially true for monitoring of public spaces. The decision to say that stuff you say/do in public can be monitored without oversight was made when that would be fairly rare accidentally or require a lot of resources to deliberately use. If we suddenly find ourselves in a world where every single public moment can be recorded and surveilled, the risk to rights is much large for the same state interest. So with the balance shifted, the legal decision could shift.

The law (thankfully) is not some hard coded machine that follows cold logic ignoring all context. (Good) judges are able to look at changes in context and recognize that the underlying factors have shifted and so change rulings.