IANAL but the main difference between surveillance video and his supposed demonstration here is that he is publishing them for public viewing.
I expect that would require a release form of some kind to be signed as as such is violating some laws.
The act of videoing itself is probably not against the law, but doing it without the express permission of the subjects with the view of publishing it later, is.
Publishing is perfectly legal, though commercial use opens one up to potential suits.
This usage is very clearly editorial. This guy is on solid legal ground.
 Commercial use is a legally tested term, not a lay one. It does not mean "selling for money", but has more to do with implied endorsements. You cannot, for example, take a picture of someone and then sell it to Apple for use on a billboard, not without a release.