Ofc it could have been benign, but there is no evidence that it was, while conversely everything that we currently know points to a breach of ethics.

One, they did not fully disclose that a camera was even there (unless I am mixing up this story with another one just like it?). That also makes it impossible to…

Two, they did not obtain proper (or any) consent. A banking ATM that needs to use your face to verify your identity could be an example of a benign use, and ignoring the enormous potential security implications of that atm, it could do so with a popup on the screen “Do you consent to having your face observed?”, “Do you consent to storage of your facial data in our database?”, “Do you consent to us selling the marketing data we collect from analysis of your facial data?”. They did none of this.

Three, when asked about it, they lied. Technically they obfuscated the truth, which is just another way of stating that they lied.

Ofc it COULD have been benign, but so far they are zero out of three already towards that end - and that is even from just what we know so far.