Some people find the idea of circumventing rights (by leasing data from private companies that they'd otherwise be prohibited from collecting) outrageous. I'd also assume most people consider civil rights to be a key political issue.
You don't get to trample all over civil rights and then accuse the other side of "making it political".
Is government not allowed to put cameras in public places? Is government not allowed to collect use data from public places? I have not heard of any challenges on those grounds so is it really circumventing?
So by supporting the idea of both cameras recording in public spaces and the ability to collect data off those cameras, you’re trampling all over civil rights?
I'm no constitutional law expert, but Dragnets Bad, Warrants Good. See also: [1]
Whether the trampling is done by the one wearing the boot, the one cheering it on, or some combination of both is only of academic interest. The anti-due-process attitude is contrary to some of the most fundamental tenets of our legal system.
Q: If it weren't ethically dubious and of questionable constitutionality, why not just put cameras in the intersections themselves (which The Government certainly controls), rather than leasing spots on private lots adjacent to them? Why not extract this data from extant highway cameras (which The Government can surely access for free)?
A: Because, like a masked cartoon burglar hiding in the bushes, they don't want the public to know what they're doing, because they know what they're doing is Bad.
You don't get to trample all over civil rights and then accuse the other side of "making it political".