He emphasises the value of the art of street photography in the article, which I agree with, but I don't think there should be any question from the public about artistic intent or otherwise. The 'suspicion of intent' comes up in the linked video with David Hurn and co. That is the source of the problem really - what the image is for, where it will be used, how the subject will come across, yada yada. As long as the subject isn't doing anything ridiculous or criminal (which they shouldn't be in a public space), there is no risk of 'defamation'. So the use of their image isn't of their concern - unless they just can't handle being camera shy. The point of my 'beyond the question of art' thing, which David Hurn puts better in the video, was whether the public likes it or not, there is more an historical importance to images of public life which overrides the suspicions and unease of the people being photographed.