Plato once spoke of Socrates asking what would happen if men had a ring which would allow them to turn invisible and do whatever they wished without being seen by anyone. Since most men would use it (albeit perhaps not initially) for bad or selfish purposes, he reasoned, it must mean that men, in general, are inherently or naturally bad. If they had the ability to have sex with whomever they wanted, steal as much gold as they wanted, etc. without getting caught this urge would supercede the morality imposed by civil society.
The removal of cameras is a similar principle. If you remove the constant view of something, people will tend to return to negative or selfish behaviors. Since the people doing these things may neglect their belief that some sort of deity (e.g., God) is perceiving them, there must be some sort of tangible symbol that someone is watching you and that you will be punished.
Before they had cameras in the mirrors of dressing rooms, for instance, people used them to steal merchandise and, in some circumstances, worse things such as rape. The flipside is that now you have someone watching you while you change.
My view is that, if you are (or try to be) good-natured, what have you to hide? If you're not a thief, rapist, or a drug-dealer, they're not interested in you.
Cameras are an invasion of privacy, though fighting for absolute privacy seems to be futile today. Rather, it seems our efforts would be best focused on erosion of privacy and personal sovereignty as pertains to activities that harm none or very few.