I sympathize with the author but I would consider non-consensual street photography ill-advised at best, not necessarily immoral. It's an accessibility issue, a

I sympathize with the author but I would consider non-consensual street photography ill-advised at best, not necessarily immoral. It's an accessibility issue, and like with many accessibility issues, it helps to engage in a "thought experiment." Just like you would assume someone with a wheelchair may want to enter your public building, you should assume that when taking picture of strangers you are being invasive towards someone struggling with anxiety and body image. It doesn't mean you _are_ being invasive whenever you take photos, just like a person with a wheelchair may never want to enter your building. I personally don't feel comfortable taking photos of strangers except if they are very far away in the shot. The author mentions the "possibility of sometimes making someone slightly uncomfortable" but from personal experience that's not the worst case scenario. And of course there are exceptions like emergencies where you should take photos. "But for an action to transcend individual discomfort and enter the netherworld of immorality there has to be both a strong societal consensus as well as palpable, real-world harm resulting from it." I can't really agree... does something need to have "strong societal consensus" of immorality to be immoral? Does a wheelchair-inaccessible public building need a disabled person sitting at the entrance to be immoral?