Simplified: "looking at you".
The extra detail you added to the story makes it colorful, but doesnt change anything. At best, it tries to use forceful words, to try and establish intent/personality to your examples target. (The perpetrator)
For clarification, I still consider it a rude act. But Im explaining why the argument isnt actually being handled properly, nor can it really accomplish much.
The very fact its an emotional argument, by my logic, is why its ok to be upset at someone looking at you.
But by HIS logic, the part im saying is flawed, he would equally suggest its not rude. (as much as it also suggests it is rude)
By your logic, you followed my own logic, but you added another tactic, to try and gain favor, in which you indirectly attacked the personality/intent of the perpetrator, rather than explain the perspective of the perceived victim. By comparing the two ways to observe someone, with forceful methods compared to more passive methods. Which in this thread talked about just moving the camera upward, w/o having to move towards a person like you claim. Getting closer is just a step a portion of people need to do, to get the angle needed. Most people dont actually need to get close.
This comparison is pointless. The intent doesnt matter. Hypothetically, there would be people would still be upset if it kept happening by accident IRL. But they would have less support, as the ones who are only upset by intent would be less likely to support the "cause" of those trying to stop accidental upskirt pictures IRL. (If such a thing were possible.)