If one doesn't want that the fact they've been at some public location, doing something, they shouldn't be there. Forcing bystanding observers to not remember or not disclose the facts they have observed is somewhat odd idea.
But love it or hate it, but it seems that we're grasping wearable computing. And that includes stuff like hearing, vision, memory or navigational aids, and such things depend on recording what's going on around the wearer. So, while today there's a clear distinction we're just bound to hit the issue some years in the future. And given that some tech is already there, said future doesn't seem to be too far away. Then the difference would be much smaller. Probably even non-existent if we'd get anywhere close to what transhumanistic sci-fi pictures ;)
And this means a war between concepts - freedom to absorb and process information, and freedom to control your personal information.
I'm not sure there is any objective approach for ethical problems, so, I guess, it would be just a matter of taste, chance and circumstances.
I think that this is especially pertinent for children who are not able to make the decision to grant these rights, the permission for a photograph or video cannot be rescinded on majority, but the person could make different decisions about where they go, what they wear and how they behave, with limited responsibility for the prior decision to do something else.
I am aware of tourist photos and photos by friends. It is reasonable to expect that I'll be in occasional photographs where I am not the subject. I know that. It is reasonable to expect that I won't be the subject of photos without my knowledge or included in detailed photographic records just because I went to a public place. Detailed imagery of your whereabouts and activities should never be expected and should only be legal with a warrant.