[sdoering]

> If you're out in public, you agree to be seen.

True. Seen and enshrined in some (or more) peoples fleeting memory. Not captured for (nearly) all eternity and the whole world (who were not present at that exact moment and place) to see.

That is also the reason I oppose ubiquitous public surveillance. Even if it can only be seen by some amount of government actors.

I am glad, that I grew up in a time without constant photography or trackability. I am glad, that I an not totally recorded with every step I take in public and that only the people who walk by might have the chance to remember my face and me being there at that moment.

[Edit] formatting [/Edit]

[moron4hire]

That's not entirely true. Photographers have long had very broad rights about shooting in public [0]. If you're in a high-traffic area, it's fairly likely you could end up in someone's photo. You might be lost in the sea of people, but you'll probably also be lost in the sea of mass data collection.

My point is not that "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear". There is perhaps a corollary, "just who do you think you are that anyone would be interested in your life?" But even that is beside the point. The point is that you've never actually had this extremely broad version of a right to privacy that you think you had.

[0] http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

[sdoering]

I know of the rights a photographer has (at least here in Germany). It is not so clear cut as it sounds. for example, if I wear a big pink hat in a sea of suits and a photographer does make a photo of me within this sea, even being among maybe hundreds of people, I am clearly the center of attention and he has to obtain the right to use (and show) the image in any way.

You are right, if me being merely some pebble in a sea of pebbles - so to speak.

So there is still some privacy implication left - even in your example.