How do deontology and utilitarianism approach the question of surveillance differently?

Question

Accepted Answer

Deontology (duty ethics) focuses on human rights, dignity and autonomy and asks "Is this permissible at all?" Utilitarianism focuses on security, benefit and harm reduction and asks "Does it lead to better outcomes?"

Deontology (Pflichtethik)
Utilitarianism (Nutzethik)

Focus
(Human) rights, dignity, autonomy
Security, benefit, minimising harm

Key question
May we do this at all?
Does it lead to better results?

On a camera at a station
Filming innocent people treats them as suspects and infringes their privacy, whatever it achieves
Justified if the prevented crimes outweigh the loss of privacy

Surveillance debates are usually a clash between these two lenses. Supporters count crimes prevented and solved. Critics point to rights that may not be traded away for a better total, however large the benefit.
Go deeper:

Wikipedia: Deontology — duty ethics: some acts are off-limits whatever the outcome.
 Wikipedia: Utilitarianism — judging acts by their total consequences.

	Deontology (Pflichtethik)	Utilitarianism (Nutzethik)
Focus	(Human) rights, dignity, autonomy	Security, benefit, minimising harm
Key question	May we do this at all?	Does it lead to better results?
On a camera at a station	Filming innocent people treats them as suspects and infringes their privacy, whatever it achieves	Justified if the prevented crimes outweigh the loss of privacy