Yet some people are upset if they get photographed by a human photographer in a public space.
Is the only difference that the photo was taken with intent?
You make it sound like it would be secondary and not really relevant, but for example, intent is the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter.
In candid street photography, I think what people fear is exactly that: bad intent, a willingness of the photographer to exploit the images in order to show ridicule or maybe even obtain sexual gratification.
And it's also an easy way to do some virtue signalling. It's striking that in the article, it's not the people being photographed who object, but complete strangers to the scene, who know absolutely nothing about the specific circumstances of how the image was taken and whether or not consent was granted.
Of course, intent lies not just in the pressing of a shutter; one can also select stills from security footage with intent to ridicule. And indeed, as a general rule, access to security footage is limited and controlled, probably for that reason.
That cuts both ways though -- I would be much more worried about the "intent" of someone looking up my face in particular and/or storing a database of millions of face-recognized surveillance videos than any possible malintent a human photographer could have. The former has much more potential for sinister outcomes originating from sinister intents.
Then again, as a sibling comment pointed out, there's a decent chance these days that the individual human photographer casually puts the image of your face into Facebook/Instagram(/Google?)'s database.
Until relatively recently, there was comparatively little institutional snooping going on, and most of that was not disseminated: for the most part, it stayed where it was taken for a couple of weeks, then the tapes were overwritten. These days, it is likely to last forever, and make its way into the hands of those companies that have made it their business to find out everything about us.
Similarly, when someone takes a snapshot on the street, it is very likely to be sucked up into the cloud. Even though I have no account with Facebook, I have little doubt that it can recognize me in the background of other people's pictures, and has a file on my whereabouts and activities.
Therefore, the issue is not the taking of the pictures per se, but the use they are put to by third parties. While I do not spend much time worrying about what could happen as a consequence, I sure do not like it, and I don't think I should have to justify that dislike.
I can be on-board with the arrangement that "You're on camera. We'll see you if you shoplift. But hopefully you're in a store where others are also weakly dissuaded away from shoplifting."
I might choose not to frequent a business where the deal is "Don't shoplift. But also, if you trip and fall maybe we'll cut a clip of you for the internet to laugh at."
A little apples to oranges, but I get the feeling the same folks who are against being photographed in public are probably pro police bodycams
And how far and widely do they apply this? Sailor kiss in Times Sq comes to mind. Shots of the crowd at a sporting event?
And then there's war photography...
The reasoning is not contradictory as you imply at the end; it is indeed apples and oranges. The "pro police bodycam" position is for capturing the actions of the person wearing it, protecting the camera's subject by adding accountability. The point is for the recording to be available as a public record in case of a problem, not for the officer to be able to use it.
A random videographer on the street does not have anything like the same relationship with their captured subjects, and is probably not making a record that is positive for the recorded person (or the public).
And that's to say nothing of private surveillance cameras; the difference there should be obvious.
Impossible to say yes or no, but it definitely seemed pivotal
They can also capture what you are reading which means that they dance very closely to the idea of recording audio in public without consent. This could be especially bad if the photographer captures images of communications used by people with disabilities such as braille or signs.
A third issue could be having your photograph taken while doing something private in public such as pooping in the woods.
Generally, the security camera pictures won't be published. Where they are published, they are still so boring that no one looks at them.
I find it hard to understand that people in this thread see no problem there.
You can still believe that photographers should have every right to take photos (and legally they do, so there's nothing to discuss about the status quo), but you need to address this point, even if only by summarily dismissing it.
Unless you trip over, get mugged or your pants fall down.
It's available to LEO - and they come with a history of leveraging surveillance in ways that profoundly damage lives.
It depends of the country.
It absolutely can and has. Such as if the CCTV captured footage of a crime or a suspect of a crime.
Additionally, if the CCTV is government controlled, it is subject to freedom of information laws (FOIA), which means anyone can get a copy of the footage for any reason and use it for any purpose. It is in effect public domain.
Your second point does not address comment you respond to.