If some story that has public interest (basically acts that usurp the
commons, acts leading to violation of the law / other's rights) was published with photos from even a private area I think it would be fully justified.
who defines public interest?? Reporters out to for a story to save their jobs?? I font know if u know this, but recently at a private celebration in chennai.. tamil newspapermen took photographs of a couple getting cosy.. and this was published as how our culture is getting westernised .. and all that culture assasination BS.. does this usurp the commons, in conservative chennai probably.. but is it justified.. I think not...
We do have many such definitions where photography
is restricted due to "security" and "public interest". Our railway stations and airports for example. Never mind that you could walk in from jari mari or fire a missile from the slums surrounding it. On a side note my cousin was shooting with a camcorder recently at Matheran. Some girls were walking around. One of them jumped up and started creating a ruckus. My cousin refused to erase his recording and told them to get out of public places if they dont want to be photographed.
wat about just basic courtsey of not photographin a person if he doesnt want to be on camera??
-- Puneet