This is similar to the type of arguments made by those wanting increased surveillance with stuff like flock camera and ID online verification expansion. Pointing to the bad things in the world it helps prevent or track down that happens.

And pointing to the law to keep pushing what they are allowed to record and track.

Privacy and security has been a balancing act. And even examples of bad thing that happens I'm sure you can relate is the very common attempt at emotional appeal used by them.

Not denying your use case, but when it comes to surveillance they all seem to use the argument of safety.

They weren't talking about legality. They were talking about ethics. Recording people without consent is one thing, but doing it secretly is another. For police, I'd argue there's implied consent as they're public servants who are theoretically working for us. (I know, they're working for the owner class, but they're paid by taxpayers.) Anyone else though? I'd say that's fairly ethically corrupt. Obviously there are exceptions, but generally it should be seen as a bad thing to do.