Outlore
It is a vicious circle, yes, and your second point, the same thinking could apply to anything is correct, and in fact it does. And that's the point I'm trying to make. What to the photographer is innocent, doesn't always look that way to the rest of the world.
Would everyone demand that no one stops and asks a man carrying a box around a residential street at midnight what he's doing? No, of course they wouldn't, yet the same principles apply, there's nothing stopping anyone from doing that, but to the a lot of others it looks shall we say suspect.
Just because you're asked to account for your actions, does it mean you are being accused of wrong doing? No, of course not, it just means that what you're doing can be seen as something else. Now, while the photog, or man with the box might well be, and usually is doing something completely innocent, they aren't always.
It's all about circumstances, you'd probably not be too worried by the same man carrying a box around the residential street at midday for example. But would you be worried about a man with a camera pointing it at say kids? Possibly yes. But again, it depends on circumstances. But we are all different, what you see as innocent, I may see differently, and vise versa.
Seriously? Last time I checked we didn't live in a dictatorship You're saying that anything we do is a privilege, not a right? Walking down the street? Sitting on a park bench? Photographers have the same rights as any member of the public. No more, no less.
No, I am not saying it is a privilege, I am saying that a right is something you have positively been given. That's not the case, there is no Section 1 of the Photography Act, no legislation says you have a right to take photos. However there is nothing that prevents you, no prohibition of photography act (in most circumstances, but there are restrictions in law). Ergo it isn't a 'right', it's just there's nothing preventing you, mostly. Thats different from saying it's a privilege.
Gazamonk
The reason why I stated what should be obvious, that not everyone with a camera is innocent, is simply because that is the crux of the entire discussion. If people use cameras in the commission of crime, which they do, then asking people with cameras what they are doing when their actions give rise to suspicion seems to be perfectly reasonable.
You mention cars and exactly the same applies, but in reality, there are far less freedoms for a car driver than someone with a camera. For example as a driver of a car you can be stopped just for driving, no offence, no suspicion of it, just to have your documents examined.
To say that
these people are assuming that everyone with a camera IS guilty
Is I'm afraid utter rubbish, all you are being asked to do is account for what you are doing, simply because to others it doesn't appear the way it might do to you. OK, you don't like it, I understand that, but I am in the same boat as you are, yet I am not ranting or over egging a vague perception my 'rights' are being infringed, simply because they are not.
So perhaps this is as I said originally to you, this is a perception thing. I don't have any thoughts of any infringement, you do. But then person A might see what you're doing as suspicious, but you don't. You are applying what you see as a right to take photos, the other person has an equal right to challenge something they are unhappy about.
Anyway, I've made my point to you, you can take it or leave it, but I am certainly not going to continue arguing against you while you claim black is white.
