[superuser2]

On the side of photographers' rights:

You're talking about placing a EULA on receiving visible light. That the photons have interacted with your person doesn't make them yours. Trying to tell people what they can and can't do with incoming visible light in a public place is an egregious breach of their freedom.

You simply do not have the authority (morally or practically) to control what happens to other people's observations about you in public spaces. It's not your data, it's theirs. Reaching into people's sensory systems and making rules about what can't get written down or shared is a disgustingly Orwellian violation of their autonomy of thought and freedom of speech.

You have a right to privacy in your enclosed property, over your secure communication channels, etc. When you can be seen from a public place, you simply don't.

On the belief that pervasive surveillance is a societal problem, it might be reasonable to restrict the state from using its property/infrastructure for surveillance camera positions, or to prevent the police from using such a system to go trawling for targets to investigate.

But you absolutely cannot bar a private individual from having cameras on his person/property/car or place restrictions on how he shares that data.