As I walked past her, I said to myself I'll not photograph the small human bundle she was. But as I am ready to walk up the stairs the other side of the passage, I just turned my camera and snapped the image. At the mercy of the AP setting, and with the focus as it was pre-set previously. You know, sometimes we just do what the brain told us not to. Strange that...
I believe you made the right choice in taking the photograph for several reasons.
1. The person is not identifiable, so there is no violation of privacy or disrespect towards them – I’ve taken worse myself!
2. Your intent was either artistic, documentary, or perhaps a bit of both.
3. Today, I was watching a wonderful video by Ivar Dahl-Larsen on YouTube – also shared on this forum – which featured a selection of his remarkable photos from his life and travels around the world. As I watched, I kept thinking, ‘What an exceptional photo! What an invaluable documentary resource for those who may study human communities at a certain time and place.’ And, photo by photo, I found myself considering: ‘This one could still be taken today, but that one could not, due to privacy concerns.’
This raises the question: what do we lose, and what do we gain, by strictly adhering to privacy ethics? We all know that privacy is a lovely abstract concept, which only ordinary people like us seem to respect, while those in positions of power couldn’t care less. I walk down the street and can count dozens of cameras recording me (even in my own garden, thanks to my neighbours). I go on Google, Facebook, Amazon, and they track me. I enter a shop, and they track me. I go to work, and there’s a camera behind me, and so on. Do we really want to stop documenting our everyday lives and leave the monopoly of future history to those in power?