Indeed, "intentional vagueness" was well put by Ron, and you provided the background reasons.
The streetshooting goes on, although it has never been a totally risk-free business. Your camera could get snatched (did not occur to me), or building owners may start harrassing you (occurred twice, but they had no clue), or a guy photographed in 15m distance with a wide angle will shout at you and call his pals (occurred once - in Tokyo! but the brats were not Japanese), or hoodlums would remind you that you are not supposed to take pictures in their control zone (occurred once).
And Ron, by the way, the fact that you are not a professional photographer does not disqualify you as a photographer ; conversely, it is possible for non-lawyers to express valid opinions about law, at least every now and then. For my part, I carefully studied ten years of French "arrêts de la cour de cassation" (sth. like supreme court rulings) pertaining to photography rights, precisely to know from which direction the wind blows, and it keeps changing. Those rulings are especially called for when either justice was miscarried, or when laws appear not to address new and evolving situations properly.
It helped me undestanding the complexity of the cases, and by the way was an excellent reading : while our politicians have difficulties to assemble two ideas in a tweet, those judges have a great sense for literature, providing long sentences, with accurate vocabulary, exquisite nuances, and a smooth and compelling flow of ideas. This may sound "scholarly" but I like that, perhaps because I got good memories of school.
