[jlgreco]

There is absolutely no such requirement. Where would such a requirement come from, and how would it be enforced? It is an absurd fabrication. The ability and right to ignore people in public has a long and proud history in western society.

[badgar]

Again, the parent poster rejects the basic implications of being in public: people observing him and knowing what he did in public. He is offended by people seeing him, hearing what he says.

Disagreeing with being observed is incompatible with Western life, since you can't get very far without leaving your private property. I do imagine in 50 years or so, you'd be right: you'll be able to live an entire life in (say) America without ever leaving your house. I'm not sure I'd want to, but the parent poster clearly requires it, if he can't handle being perceived.

[jlgreco]

He has every right to hold whatever opinion on privacy he wants, and he can act on those opinions in any legal fashion he wishes.

If he intends to drag people to court and thinks that will work, then he is delusional. If he is just choosing to abstain from unnecessary contact with people who are wearing cameras? Not my cup of tea, but so what? He can do that all he wishes.

I have some rather similar rules that are less extreme but applied much more often in practice. For example, I refuse to interact with people on public transit or on the street when I am wearing headphones. You could say I am "offended" when people try to talk to me when I am actively ignoring them. Big whoop. You find his expectations of social conduct unreasonable. Big whoop.

You can say that I "can't" have that attitude towards social interaction in public, or that he cannot, but the simple fact of the matter is that we can. We have the ability and the right to choose how we wish to interact with others.