This isn't about being in a public setting, this is about taking photos of people with the intention of including them in a database for later use. It can't be that simply being in public means that you give up all such rights, since it's impossible to avoid being in public.
That informed consent should be obtained seems obvious -- perhaps some of those people wouldn't want their faces to be used in that way. Are their desires without meaning? From the report, it also sounds like the images were being obtains in a plainly deceptive manner.
Whether or not there is "harm" is beside the point. The point is whether or not people are being deceived, and whether or not we as a society value meaningful autonomy.
But it simply can be. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy walking down a public street. I can walk down the street taking high definition photos and video of everyone I encounter and they would have no recourse to stop me, nor should they in a free society.
But, in the US anyway, the notion that you have no privacy at all in public isn't actually true.
People can take your picture, but there are longstanding legal privacy protections in place for how that picture can be used (for instance, commercial use is restricted). What I'm arguing is that those existing protections are no longer sufficient, and restrictions for use should include requiring having permission to include the pictures in databases as well.
But none of this is terribly relevant to the issue at hand. In this case, an actual transaction and apparent deception is involved.
Whatever its legal classification, it's still protective of privacy, and it's still an example of how the idea that you have no legal protection when you're in public isn't accurate.
It's not a matter of classification, but effect: it doesn't stop people from revealing things you don't want revealed, but from reading on your identity as, essentially, a commercial brand.
Depending on the state, even if the state recognizes the right (it's not a federal right, and not all states, IIRC, have any version of it), it also may not protect you at all, since some states only recognize right of publicity for celebrities. (In effect, your identity needs to be a valuable brand before it's protected in some jurisdictions.)
This comment confuses me. Why would you think I wouldn't be aware of that? If I thought that, I wouldn't have felt the need to express my opinion.
EDIT: I guess you're reacting to my "it can't be" comment. That was an expression of personal outrage at the idea of being placed in a powerless position, not an assertion of fact. All kinds of really terribly things are possible, obviously.
That informed consent should be obtained seems obvious -- perhaps some of those people wouldn't want their faces to be used in that way. Are their desires without meaning? From the report, it also sounds like the images were being obtains in a plainly deceptive manner.
Whether or not there is "harm" is beside the point. The point is whether or not people are being deceived, and whether or not we as a society value meaningful autonomy.