Comment by palata

You are the one nitpicking about the argument ("I agree with your point, but I will just complain about your example"), so don't be surprised if you get answers :-).

> This is like saying, “We should ban guns!” And then use a successful self-defense case as a supporting argument.

Not quite, no. It is saying "If even those people who benefit from their national security can be tracked by an actor that does not own the cameras, it means that anyone can be tracked by those cameras. Do we want foreign actors to be able to track anyone in the country, even the leadership?".

It actually makes a stronger point than "normal people who gladly share all their data can be tracked", and even stronger than "a journalist taking care not to be tracked can still be tracked". Here we have the leadership of a country that knows that they are targets, who therefore benefit from national security. And they can still be tracked.