"Reading this and the first post, I think this is still a slightly different version of "she was asking for it". I'm sure you could see it if you tried to separate the two sets of crimes."
The problem is that you are ASSUMING, in the first place, that the person taking photographs of something that happens in public is committing a crime. On what basis do you make this judgment? Where would you draw the line? (And this is the whole problem.) You want to take pictures of a public building? Why not? That's not a crime, is it? Well, what if there are people on the front steps of the building? Is it suddenly a crime to take a picture?
There are all kinds of ways you can go to extremes here. But at some point those extremes become reality.
So, now: let's just say that we agree you can still take pictures of that public building, if a few people just happen to be standing near it that will be in your picture. That seems reasonable.
Then some woman standing on those steps lifts up her dress. (Maybe you didn't notice, maybe you did.) Should it now be illegal to take that same picture? Why? What gives that person the right to control where you take your pictures?
That may sound ridiculous to you but it's actually quite important. If you say no, it is still your right to take that public picture, when does tht change? Does it change when the woman lifting up her dress is standing in a crowd and facing you? Does it change when you are in a smaller public place, like a food court in a mall? Maybe in a bus?
See, it isn't a matter of "her asking for it", like some people would say if she walked down the wrong alley at night in a skimpy dress. (You and I would probably agree that she was NOT "asking for it", but just as an example of what we're talking about.) Because a rape or something of that nature is already a crime anyway. You'd be saying (wrongly, probably, but still saying) she was asking you to commit the crime.
But the reason THIS situation is not the same, is that she's not "asking for" someone to commit a crime... she's CONTROLLING WHETHER or not it is a crime. Do you see the difference?
If she were not there, it would not be a crime for you to take a picture of the bus. If she is there, and the laws are made that way, SHE could decide whether a crime was committed on her merest whim, by simply saying what her "intentions" were. She can control your behavior by forcing you do not do something you would otherwise be able to legally do... and decide whether or not you are a criminal, any time she wants.
And that's not what laws are supposed to be about. Laws say what is illegal, people on the street don't. That's why there has to be a line, and it can't be left up to vague "intentions". You can't leave it up to somebody's say-so whether something was a crime or not. (Again, that's a different situation from saying somebody is guilty of theft or something which is a crime anyway, they're just giving witness.)
But if you make the simple rule: "If you don't want it seen, don't show it" then everybody knows what the line is, and nobody has to try to read anybody else's mind to know whether their behavior is criminal or not. AND... you don't have anybody bullying anybody else over threats of saying they committed a crime when they didn't.
And that's actually the way the law is in most places. In one state nearby, for instance, they tried to pass a law against "upskirt" photographs, but they couldn't because they could not find a way to define the law. It is legal to go naked in public if you want, but if you do -- because it's public -- you can be photographed. How can you square that with a law against taking photos up a skirt? Answer: you can't. Not without saying somebody is guilty of a crime based on nothing but someone else's word.