> 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,

> 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. If that's really the case, is it required that the harm be made known to other people? Is privacy not a factor here? What if someone's reason for not being photographed is literally "because I don't want others to even know that I'm here"? The underlying reason could be anything as minor as going to a job interview, surprising a loved one, etc. to something as major as avoiding/fleeing persecution in their home country—you have no idea. Is it not presumptuous to assume we should be able to know people's reasons for things? Do/should they have an obligation to explain their rationales to random street photographers trying to make money off them? Why should they even trust that they can safely tell the reason to a random photographer to begin with? If the photographer doesn't see a harm because 99% of people are OK with it, does that also make it moral toward the 1% left?