Apple's process is correct here, in my opinion. They (rightfully) require that an app declare why it needs access to resources/data, and they verify (rightfully) that it is meaningful and does not use circular logic ("The camera will be used to take photographs"). Remember, this is not only for users, it is also for reviewers - to keep out apps that unnecessarily access things (that many users don't have the energy to think about, and will just tap "allow" in the permissions spam they will come to expect from every app if this policy was not enforced).

Given the enormous volume of app submissions and the large number of points each app must be reviewed on, it might be unrealistic to require that reviewers always use the full context of the app when reviewing each individual component - the person reviewing the message might not even know what the app is! And they shouldn't have to! The message should be self-explanatory. The app needs access to the camera because it is a photography app, not because it takes photos.

I applaud Apple's thoroughness on this topic. It's much better than the opposite problem, which is what plagues virtually 100% of other software platforms historically, and I'm disheartened for software as a whole that some people (especially HN users, who should be more thoughtful) can't see beyond the petty "it must be mindless Apple defenders" catch-all, or the "rejection reasons are sometimes non-specific" problem, (the latter of which I am assuming on good faith is a real problem, though I've never personally encountered it).