Legality of this aside... I assume the best in people. So I assume this is a person trying to call into focus the blurry spectrum between experiencing an event

Legality of this aside... I assume the best in people. So I assume this is a person trying to call into focus the blurry spectrum between experiencing an event, documenting an event on paper, drawing, pictures, and video. And he's probably doing it because with the technology coming down the pipeline, these lines are going to get even more blurred. Perhaps he's even an advocate of legislation to prevent things like this and just figures you have to poke someone (the public; the legislature) in the eye to get them to respond. But even so, this is a pretty jerk-ish way to do that for animalistic reasons. He's not just recording people, he's staring at strangers. Several times he made the plea of "I'm not being threatening." That's patently false. We're mammals. Staring at a stranger for prolonged periods of time is a direct, unambiguous threat. If a stranger stared at me like that, blank faced and unmoving, I would call the police with or without a video camera. And if I saw you doing it to someone I cared about, I'd probably consider attacking you, or at least putting on a good show of it. So he's missing the whole point, and the headline reads "creepy cameraman.." instead of "Man draws focus on ubiquitous surveillance." His creepiness is confounded with the recording such that it's impossible to ply apart what part of the reaction is because of him and what part is because of his camera. Hopefully it'll draw out the public discussion I assume he wants drawn out.