I think this is the crux of the problem. Most people do not view a person speaking to them in a public place as an affront. If you are unable to cope with simple human interaction expect people to find your mundane actions suspicious.
But most of the anti-photographer posts in this discussion begin with the assumption that anyone who is taking pictures that
might include children MUST be a pervert/pedophile and that the photographer MUST be accosted and asked to explain himself. As an amateur photographer, I think that's annoying. I'm "into" cameras and photography much as I am "into" guns and cars. I love cameras and taking pictures. If I'm out shooting and someone wants to come over and chat about which model of Canon I have, why I prefer Canon to Nikon, what lens I'm using, how do I handle depth of field, etc., I'm happy to spend some time (within reason) discussing photography.
If someone who doesn't know jack about cameras walks up, though, and wants to know,"What are you doing?" my answer is probably going to be a curt "Taking pictures, what does it look like I'm doing?" And if the other person doesn't take the hint that I'm not interested in chatting up a total stranger about whatever HE wants to talk about, that's his problem. Having him try to make it MY problem by calling a cop because I am engaged in a lawful activity in a public place is harassment, nothing more, nothing less.
Let's remember -- this thread is not about someone who hides a camera in the girls locker room at the gymnasium or in the daughter's bedroom of their neighbor's house. This discussion is about a person with a camera in a PUBLIC park, where any children who
might (or might not) be in some or all of the photos are presumably clothed at least to normal degrees. Thus, all presumptions that the photographer's action are "suspicious" are on the part of and in the mind of the parental unit. The photographer is doing NOTHING illegal.
