privately owned

Nah sorry, conversation ends there.

Cameras on private property don't affect you. Also, they are never because of the kindness of humanity. They're always because someone was a bad neighbor/bad tourist/bad human. You can wish all you want for the state to not have you under surveillance - that's fine. But if you wanna enter private property, you succumb to private rules. And if you don't wanna do that, you can stay out.

Weird, almost counterintuitive, example. But I get your thought.

A normally inaccessible and poorly lit tourist attraction, like a cave, is a good fit for surveillance for those times when a tourist wanders off or goes against the rules which could be harmful to themselves and others around them.

Having said that, I agree with your thought and that there are a lot of other areas that would be better without surveillance.