I know the technique you are talking about and have used it myself. I have been doing photography for 50 years now, since I was 14. I prefer the photo the way it is, but I do understand why you might prefer something else. Here is a page of photos taken by others at the same events. You can tell mine apart right away. A few of mine are mixed in here with other peoples’.
Actually, I didn’t want the viewer to know what she was looking at. That is revealed in the next photo! 
My photography is ‘cinematic’, by which I mean it shows one thing at a time. Ready for my closeup, Mr. DeMille!
I used to watch films from the 1930s when I was young, and they used to do a lot of close-ups back then.
This is what I was going to say. I’m not a fan on “street photography” focussing on specific individuals because while people might not have an expectation of privacy whilst out on the street, that doesn’t mean they also have an expectation they’ll get a camera stuck in their face and their (possibly unflattering in their eyes) pic ends up on an indie art gallery’s wall or worse, on the internet.
Well, while there is the right to do that, as this asshole photographer does, these tactics rarely produce interesting photographs. If he did that to me, his Leica and his 24mm Elmarit would be smashed to bits. He’s a low-class ignorant piece of shit. He is the reason I do not call myself a photographer. I don’t want to be associated with scum like him. He thinks he’s being clever or creative. NOT!!!
I’m not familiar with the gentleman in question’s work, so my comments were directed at the genre as a whole - don’t photograph specific people in public going about their daily lives without either A) Their permission or B) Truly extenuating circumstances such as “you’re a newspaper photographer taking photos of a news event”. Art classes/looking for ways to pad out one’s portfolio/putting together an exhibition are not generally, IMHO, truly extenuating circumstances.
Well that’s a bit strict, but there is a difference between what I do and what he does. I do sometimes ask permission even though I don’t have to, but I don’t shove my camera in peoples’ faces or use a flash. What an asshole this guy is! I work very discreetly. He has apparently been using the same tactics for decades. Where’s the growth and development? The photos are not impressive.
I think you’re missing the point. I don’t think people should be taking random photos of specific strangers in public - either overtly (by sticking a camera in their face) or discreetly, as you say you do - without their express permission or a very good reason.
In some ways, doing it covertly could be seen as worse than overt street photography, too.
Well, it’s perfectly legal and quite proper. The laws are quite explicit. It’s not a matter of whether, but how. If you confront people you run the risk of being charged with being a nuisance, which is actually a petty crime. You can’t block peoples’ path for instance except for a moment.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with photographing people in public. What matters is how you do it.
It’s legal but it’s certainly not proper - I think it’s a monumentally dickish thing to do, a view which several people have already expressed in this thread.
It’s not ‘improper’ by any means. But as I have said, disturbing people is another thing altogether.
What is wrong with this?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/6231857434/\
I was in full view of the child and her parents the whole while.
Have you considered the mere act of taking someone’s photograph is disturbing them? I consider it so.
No, it isn’t. There has to be more than that. I am not defending this asshole’s tactics, but everyone has the right to take photographs of people in public. Photography tends to attract socially awkward men. This is why I do not socialize with photographers or call myself a photographer. Most of them are jerks.
Lots of people (myself included) do not like having their photographs taken, and would be disturbed by seeing a photographer with a camera clearly aimed at them in a public place where nothing newsworthy or unusual is taking place.
If you don’t appreciate street photography as an art form, you’re dismissing a large percentage of the greatest photographs of the last 150 years.
You might be annoyed, but you really are not being disturbed. There is a difference. It is perfectly legal and proper…
To whom is this addressed?
No, I’d be disturbed and annoyed.
Well, the law is clear on the point. What irritates me is assholes like this guy who are not even decent photographers. My work is 10,000x better than this guy’s, and I don’t even call myself a photographer. I discard stuff better than his crap.
So you’re saying it’s OK to engage in dickish behaviour if it’s legal?
I said above his Leica and 24mm would be in pieces if he did that to me. Not because he was taking photos, but because he is an asshole blasting a flash in my eyes and obstructing my path. If he got in my way I would run him over! If he stood by a lamp-post and snapped unobtrusively, no problem. Do you understand the distinction?