Street photography ethical or un-ethical?

Ian Stone wrote: Here's a good article I read some time ago that hits it on the head -  www.businessinsider.my/5-basic-principle...ography/#.VKLE814AMs  

I am sorry but that article is how to be an ineffective street photographer. Also that is from a Malaysian source, in which case much is different culturally.
The point of what if someone shot a photo of me while I was about my business?
Well if I am out in the public realm then I like everyone else is a fair target. Truthfully I would not shoot me because when I am out walking around, I am pretty emotionless in public. Also you will note that they wrote that journalists needed releases. This is very untrue, journalists can publish your likeness without your permission.
Avoiding beggars or the homeless. Are they kidding? Some of them make the best subjects. I know some have a problem with this, but hey it is life, and this is merely showing some of the darker side of it. Life is not all unicorns, and rainbows. If you feel bad about it then buy them some food, and give it to them after you shot them, or before, it is your choice. But I will never give them any money, ever. Because it will 9 times out of 10 be used to score liquor, or drugs, not food.
While I personally see no problem with shooting kids that may get into a shot, I personally have never shot them intentionally while doing street. Well there were a couple way back in the 70s that were throwing massive fits in the street, and the parent showing obvious weakness, I found it entertaining. What I am tired of is the demonization of photographers shooting in public areas because there are children present, and that it is more directed towards males over all. This is clear profiling, and direct discrimination that infers that if a man happens to be shooting photos in the presence of children he must be a pedo, or pervert. Now I will grant that there are some of them out there, and I think they should be locked away for a very longtime, but to instantly treat all as potential perverts is a travesty of justice. It would be aking to me saying all of one group is evil just because they are a part of that group. The real problem is it seems to be the normal state of the way things are anymore.
 Intruding on private moments. Okay! If people are out in a public area, their moment is far from private. A private moment to me is one that only those involved in are able to see. Again if you are in the public your privacy is out the widow.
Keeping things in context. Ummm! He seems to want the whole big picture. So I am guessing you are supposed to shoot wide a lot. How about that something about the subject made me want to shoot them, and that is the context. So what if I crop to get rid of parts that do not pertain to the subject. The only time I can see this as being a problem is with PJ shooting if it is going to form some public opinion, and I do mean if they hack out what would be context. That is because PJ shooting is supposed to be about the whole story, and not the manipulation of it. 
Of course this is merely my opinion on that article, your mileage may vary.

I think it's a matter of being respectful. If someone wants to do street photography they'll probably need to be comfortable interacting with strangers; if not then maybe street photography isn't for them.

I haven't done what's usually considered street photography but have done sports, events etc. and get asked all the time about what I do (if I work for the local paper, if I'm the goalie's mom, lol etc.). I just tell them what I'm doing. Even if you're taking photos of people who may not see you photographing them it's likely you'll at some point be interacting with them or someone else and I think need to know how to do that.

I think there's an expectation if you're at a game or festival etc. that the local media could be there and pictures would be getting taken (including families and kids) and the event functions under the procedures set up by the organization running it. In public there wouldn't be restrictions on taking pictures but it's understandable that parents would have a concern about a stranger taking their child's picture and where it might end up or how it might be used.

I think it's best to be respectful of parents' wishes if they don't want their child photographed. Even in the type work I've done (not photography related) our agency had releases signed by parents but they always had the option to not sign a release or not have their child's photo taken at an agency event or used for publicity purposes.

I think being ethical means a photographer showing respect for the people being photographed even if the photograph shows some harsh reality of life.

KCook wrote:

Ian Stone wrote: Here's a good article I read some time ago that hits it on the head -  www.businessinsider.my/5-basic-principle...ography/#.VKLE814AMs  

Or was that 5 Reasons To Give Up On Street Photography?