On the side of photographers&#x27; rights:<p>You&#x27;re talking about placing a EULA on receiving visible light. That the photons have interacted with your person doesn&#x27;t make them yours. Trying to tell people what they can and can&#x27;t do with incoming visible light in a public place is an egregious breach of their freedom.<p>You simply do not have the authority (morally or practically) to control what happens to other people&#x27;s observations about you in public spaces. It&#x27;s not your data, it&#x27;s theirs. Reaching into people&#x27;s sensory systems  and making rules about what can&#x27;t get written down or shared is a disgustingly Orwellian violation of their autonomy of thought and freedom of speech.<p>You have a right to privacy in your enclosed property, over your secure communication channels, etc. When you can be seen from a public place, you simply don&#x27;t.<p>On the belief that pervasive surveillance is a societal problem, it might be reasonable to restrict the state from using its property&#x2F;infrastructure for surveillance camera positions, or to prevent the police from using such a system to go trawling for targets to investigate.<p>But you absolutely cannot bar a private individual from having cameras on his person&#x2F;property&#x2F;car or place restrictions on how he shares that data.