I don't know if you are deliberately misunderstanding or what.
When I say:
--> I don't want to live in a society where you can beat someone with a pipe and not go to jail because the guy who took the photo didn't ask
I am not talking about you using violence to stop people taking your picture.
I am talking about some random person taking a picture of a crime in progress, and the criminal walks because the photographer didn't ask his permission to photograph the crime.
I am talking about giving criminals an reasonable expectation of privacy in public means they can do whatever they want, because no photographic evidence of their crime will ever be admissible. That is what I see you advocating.
I feel you are being more of a troll here, deliberately misunderstanding to be a prat; if you honestly don't understand the difference between taking a picture in a public place and deliberately invading their personal space you need some help.
I stand by original "don't do things in public that you want kept private, most of us learn that before we are out of grade school", you address little except trollish misunderstandings. I am specifically talking about photography not taking videos, and nothing in the article supports any such ban.
That being said:
Full transparency can only support freedom, if everyone can record everyone else, then it's harder to lie about who did what. If only certain people are allowed to record people in public then they can conveniently lose anything they don't wish to share. hint: you are already being recorded in lots of places, many businesses have security cameras. Those that do stand in an advantaged position if there is a dispute and they control the sole recording.