The courts say otherwise see sole focus picture in case of Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia[1].  If it were not possible, we would not have &quot;street photography&quot; we would not have Robert Frank, Cartier-Bresson, Winogrand, Meier or Arbus.  Picture in question[2]  We also would not have documentary photography.<p>Certainly it can feel rude to us, but the law allows it and moreover the feeling of rudeness comes more from believing we &quot;own&quot; our likelinesses in public spaces, which we do not.  So, yes, I could feel intruded upon by a documentary or street photographer, no question, but at the same time, they have the right to take my picture, no question.<p>[1]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia</a><p>[2]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wmuphoto.wordpress.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;02&#x2F;07&#x2F;nussenzweig-v-dicorcia&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wmuphoto.wordpress.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;02&#x2F;07&#x2F;nussenzweig-v-dico...</a><p>If you disagree with the position, post a link to law which states otherwise.  There is lots of case law asserting the right of photographers to take pictures unimpeded in public spaces.