I would imagine if you read the definitions in the legal code they would define "surveillance", and it would be different from what typically happens, which is a random person briefly being somewhere in the video. Surveillance implies closely monitoring one or more subjects for the purpose of gathering information about them. Also, I believe the people would have to be clearly recognizable for a release to be needed.
Right on target. Found this excerpt from a Seattle city ordinance which defines "surveillance:"
“Surveillance” or “surveil” means to observe or analyze the movements, behavior, or
actions of identifiable individuals in a manner that is reasonably likely to raise concerns about
civil liberties, freedom of speech or association, racial equity or social justice. Identifiable
individuals also include individuals whose identity can be revealed by license plate data when
combined with any other record. It is not surveillance if an individual knowingly and voluntarily
consented to provide the information, or had a clear and conspicuous opportunity to opt out of
providing the information.
“Surveillance capability” means the ability to collect, capture, transmit, or record data
that could be used to surveil, regardless of whether the data is obscured, de-identified, or
anonymized before or after collection and regardless of whether technology might be used to
obscure or prevent the capturing of certain views or types of information.
“Surveillance data” means any electronic data collected, captured, recorded, retained, processed, intercepted, or analyzed by surveillance technology acquired by the City or operated at the direction of the City.
“Surveillance technology” means any electronic device, software program, or hosted software solution; that is designed or primarily intended to be used for the purpose of surveillance.