You didn't read the other thread, did you?
We covered this there.
What the fuck, I'll cover it again.
The KEY concept in the OTHER thread was INTENTIONALLY capturing images. Initially, in regards to speeding tickets.
Eventually, it was expanded to whether or not I have any right to privacy once I step outside of my house. Can anyone start photographing me without my permission?
My example was that, if I exhibited such behaviour towards a woman, I could be arrested for stalking.
But it is okay for non-persons (corporations and such) to do so. Even to retain your image and to run it through recognition software.
I don't agree with that. I believe I have a right to privacy even after I leave my house. Consider it an extension of unreasonable search and seizure. The cops can't search me on the street, why should they be allowed to photograph me?
Now, because lots of people have cameras and like taking pictures of buildings and their friends and such, it is not unreasonable that I may happen to step into someone's picture. But they usually have the camera visible, and it is apparent that they are photographing something, it is usually also apparent what they are photographing. In which case, it is my fault for ending up in their picture.
Again, back to guns.
I can go to the firing range and shoot targets. If some idiot runs around down range and I hit him, the cops are not going to punish me. I won't even do jail time. Is it "illegal"? Well, that depends upon what "illegal" really means. No fine, no time, no crime.
Which was why I used the gun example in the first place.
Most people understand "murder" vs "self defence" vs "accident". Yet all involve someone firing a gun and hitting another person.
Which are "illegal"?