Given all that, who could be against a measure taken in the name of safety?

The note about the cameras even offered some reassurances. The footage, it said, will be stored locally, not on the cloud.

And after all, really, what’s a few dozen more cameras? All of us are already videotaped endlessly on our trek to and from the office. On sidewalks and in restaurants. In waiting rooms and in the park. At the theater. In the lobby of this building. In the elevators. And now in the newsroom.

Writing in The Privacy Project, Kara Swisher, a Times contributing Opinion writer, summed up the response of many in the tech industry to people who lament the boundless incursions into their private lives: “Get over it!”

“I don’t intend to,” she wrote, “and I don’t think anyone else should, either.”

Ms. Swisher was talking about corporate data snatchers, but it’s pretty good advice all around.

[If you use technology, someone is using your information. We’ll tell you how — and what you can do about it. Sign up for our limited-run newsletter.]

Again and again, people who are scared show a reluctance to question measures taken in the name of security, even when they strike some as excessive, or even senseless. After the Sept. 11 attacks, people lined up dutifully at newly installed metal detectors to enter a skating rink in Central Park — never mind that they then went outside to skate in open view.

The new cameras at The Times were not, in the end, a Privacy Project experiment. But you may still be wondering how all those supposed troublemakers here reacted.