If you could claim actual voyeurism (not at all obvious from your original comment) it may be quite different, of course.

Thus the assed kicked thing, that was not a comment on the likelihood (as you say, who knows). The point was if you initiate a violent response you open yourself up to charges and you don’t have any protection because this person wasn’t doing anything they are not entitled by law to do. So if you `win’ the scuffle you are clearly legally in the wrong, whereas if you lose … well, you’ve lost and also probably have no legal recourse (for the beating, or the photos).

If you don’t understand the relation of photography to voyeurism that’s your problem.8ut I had a photo teacher, a well known photographer, who began each semester with a lecture about one rule:never, never, take a photograph of a person even a homeless bum without his permission. I’ve mentioned this before here in relation to the mythologies of objectivity and journalism and other professions based on social observation and gotten the equivalent of blank stares in response.

The neoliberal imagination. What else to say?
Get my ass kicked? Doubtful but who knows.

I’ve argued in the past that other police activities should be recorded, particularly SWAT-style raids that involve forced entry into private homes.

But it shouldn’t end there. Legislators need to repeal laws explicitly forbidding the recording, photographing or videotaping of police officers. And to the extent that more generalized wiretapping laws meant for the general public also apply to the police, they should be amended to allow private citizens to record officers while they’re on duty.

This isn’t to say police don’t have the same privacy rights as everyone else. They do — when they aren’t on duty, in possession of a sidearm and carrying with them the authority that comes with enforcing the law of the state.

But while they’re on duty, they serve the public. And the public, their employer, should have every right to keep them accountable.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,284075,00.html

So there you have the dark side of “privacy”—the law aimed at protecting privacy ends up quite improperly restricting people’s liberty, and people’s ability to protect themselves against police misconduct.

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1164051408.shtml

Of all the people I know, the ones who are most perceptive about the world around them are invariable photographers or artists (or both).

If you’ve been following the experiences Chris and I have been describing here then you may have learned that if anything, it is precisely the opposite of this that frequent use of our cameras has let us do. We notice way more around us than we used to before, we appreciate simple scenes for things we would never have glanced at twice earlier. So it depends on your uses and approach.

Now, most museums tolerate non-flash amateur photography (I hate the flashing morons). Only special exhibitions prohibit them to safeguard those “vital” copyrights.

Security circus and soup nazis offend me.