[kapuasuite]

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.

[JohnFen]

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.

[dragonwriter]

> People can take your picture, but there are longstanding legal privacy protections in place for how that picture can be used

Right of publicity isn't a privacy right; it's more closely related to copyright or trademark than privacy rights.

[JohnFen]

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.

[dragonwriter]

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.)