I acknowledge that within a country, state, city, or on private property, I have no expectation for privacy from being recorded other than a few customary exceptions based on taboos against nudity, such as in the restroom or dressing rooms.

I understand a necessity for sometimes being taped for security purposes when I am near a country, state, city, or private property, and although I haven't consented, I accept that it's within the material interests of their management to monitor potential dangers nearby. I, however, expect that these materials will be used only for those purposes, and destroyed after they are not useful for those purposes. I expect this because I haven't consented to any use at all, but accept conditionally that socially, we think that this a legitimate usage.

I extend this to personal space: if someone wants to wear cameras to tape around their own bodies for security purposes i.e. to mitigate against the potential of someone committing a crime against their person, I accept that, but only for those reasons, and I expect no other use of the images, and for them to be destroyed after they have served that purpose. A person's eyes operate in a similar fashion, and I certainly cannot demand that people not look at me.

I also cannot demand that people not think about me, so I ask no control about the stories people tell about what they have seen (unless previously agreed), as those stories have been interpreted by a mind, are a significant transformation, and are really the essence of an individual and the most basic natural right if there is any such thing.

If I don't verbally object, I accept that a photograph taken of me that I am clearly aware of (if I see the camera in operation) can be assumed to have been consented to.

Outside of this, stay away from me. It's insane that photographers, people who completely make a living off of copyright because what they've done often takes very little creativity and can be reproduced trivially, are so cavalier about what other people can say no to.

The article shows this same attitude clearly. It starts with a covert argument, made covert because it is obviously not good, but not left out because it functions as an attack on people who question displaying and selling creepshots that you've taken of women in the subway. It then moves to what it thinks are two clear arguments (although the second is essentially just a restatement of the covert argument, but with a philosophical tone meant to make it sound more serious.) It then gish-gallops around, repeating itself with different rephrasings, and making declarations sound like observations.

-----

Covert Argument Zero: People who complain about a photograph taken without consent, in the author's experience, are not the ones in the photograph, but other people.

Answer: This is a barely tarted up version of the universal "troublemakers and agitators" argument. I'd note that, in general, more people see a photo than are in that photo, so the vast majority of people questioning its ethics would be expected to be among the people who see the photo. The article itself cites a lawsuit from the subject of a photo, but only to say "the courts think I should be able to do this too, although I'm still going to make an ethical argument and not hide behind the law, but the law supports me, or people doing things even worse than me."

-----

One: If you ask for consent, the picture won't be candid, and I prefer a candid picture. Also, the subject may ask for some editorial control over their image, and I don't want to give it to them because they may not like a photo that I like.

Answer: There is no part of ethical decision-making that requires preserving your business model.

-----

Two: a) What you like or don't like doesn't define what is right and wrong. In fact, "society" has agreed that I am right and you are wrong by not unanimously determining that I am wrong. Also, b) people cannot be harmed by photography which is anonymous[?], and in a public space[?].

Answer: This starts with an immediate hypocrisy in a). After declaring that consent wasn't necessary because with consent, you can't get the photo you want and you don't get the editorial control you demand, the author continues with an argument that personal preferences don't define what is right or wrong. She then declares that all is allowed unless it is universally condemned, notes that the type of photography she wants to do is not universally condemned, and makes an arbitrary declaration about an example behavior being universally condemned. Even worse, the author does it tautologically: "inappropriate touching" has been "universally determined to be flat-out wrong." No shit. "Inappropriate photography" is the same. When you put the adjective "inappropriate" in front of something, you're limiting your discussion to what is "not appropriate." This is a discussion about what is not appropriate. If your answer is "things that are inappropriate," you're not being responsive.

And b): is a simple declaration that photography cannot be harmful in the "anonymity of a public space." None of this discussion has been about people who are anonymous, all of it has been about people who are identifiable and who have not given consent. I'm going to guess that the "anonymity of a public space" being referred to here is the fact that since the photographer hasn't asked for consent, the subject is anonymous to the photographer. This is unbelievably solipsistic. It's just impossible for the author to escape the perspective of someone who is making a living from this, and the confidence that the subject is only important from the photographers' point of view (and always really desires this relationship although troublemakers are trying to get in the way.) No matter how anonymous I am to you, I guarantee that there exist other people that recognize me, whether or not I'm sharing a public space with you.

-----

The remainder are statements posing as arguments:

Q1: You are being photographed by other people outside.

A1: That does not mean that I consent to be photographed by you. I have a different relationship to each of the entities photographing me which imply various levels of consent. Just because I have sex with everyone else does not mean I'm obligated to have sex with you.

Q2: When you enter a public space, a lot of expectations for your privacy must be overridden.

A2: Why should you in particular be one of the people allowed to override them? Other people have administration and security considerations that may override my personal preferences. You have nothing but the desire to photograph me.

Q3: The difference between a surveillance camera and a photographer is intention.

A3: This intentionally narrows the world to "surveillance camera" and artistic photography, in order to use an algorithmic defense. Algorithms are by nature fine, because they don't intend anything. Obvious bullshit. Algorithms have the intention of the people who set them up. The intention of a security camera is security. Without that intention, it fails to be a security camera, and reverts to being a camera.

Q4: If the intention of the photographer is to ridicule or expose the individual, this "veers dangerously close" to being unethical. If the intention of the photographer is to masturbate, or to help others masturbate, it's obviously unethical.

A4: These are more personal declarations of universal condemnation disguised as deep ethical truths. If anything, the law has made more exceptions for photography meant to ridicule or expose individuals than photography that does not, because it becomes journalistic.

Q5: To conflate what she does to photography that ridicules, exposes, or arouses sexually is reckless and creates fear. This fear may result in people not wanting to be photographed, and makes them think that a photographer should be bound by their personal preferences.

A5: Tell me more about your problems, and why I'm a bad person for causing them.

Q6: is a random list of statements about how, actually, everything is alright and good. 1) There's war, but everybody can win, 2) there is no human sacrifice, 3) We are already protected from photographers doing what they want to do with an image [are we?], 4) specialized spying equipment like drones are illegal [why?], 5) A photographer can be tried for libel if there is a will to misrepresent [why?], 6) you can't use an image for commercial purposes without a consent form [is exhibiting, posting on twitter, or selling an image commercial, or do you just mean ads and porn?], 7) You can't use an image for an an ad [ah, you left out porn.]

Q7: "The law does its due diligence in safeguarding the subject"

A7: This is not an argument, this is a conclusion. It was a conclusion obvious from every sentence from the first on.