If I'm in a public space w/o an expectation of privacy you have every right to photograph me. Same goes for my daughter, bathing-suit or street-clothes.
I value the right of others to make photos in public spaces and I recognize that it applies to me as a subject.
In that case wasn't it your choice if you wear something like that in public perfectly knowing that you can "bend over" and thus who can say it wasn't your intention to show what you show. What it has to do with photographer who simply makes a picture of what you show in public by your own design in that example?
>or they continually follow you with a camera in your face for blocks.
If someone continually follow you may be the 'follow' is the problem, not the photography part? I mean if someone continually follow you for blocks without camera could it be worse? At least photographer presumably does it for pictures only and simply due to the poor skills didn't succeed with the first 10 tries. Again what it has to do with the photography by itself ?
So may be it is boolean? You are in public and that means someone have right to make pictures of what public looks like. Or you have other examples?
What about if a neighbor decided to take pics of your daughter walking to school every day? What if that neighbor starts a blog?
There's this pervasive attitude in the comments for this article that having your photo taken in public is some major affront. I see people equating it with assault, even. That feels very "Internet tough guy" to me.
I feel like I've made the "Internet tough guys" unhappy by not falling in line behind them. They simply can't conceive that I wouldn't be "outraged" at the same things they are. That, too, "outrages" them, apparently.
An extreme example, but I suspect there are very few people for whom this is a Boolean issue.