Since you're allergic to peanuts that means everybody should be banned from eating peanuts and we should stop growing them, right?
While directly providing said stalker with information seems like a harmful, and likely prosecutable behavior, the indirect providing of information is not a burden the general public should bear for another parties already illegal actions.
> Since you're allergic to peanuts that means everybody should be banned from eating peanuts and we should stop growing them, right?
My kid's school strictly bans peanut products due to at least one kid having a severe and potentially deadly allergy. It seems like a reasonable and necessary precautions to avoid harm or injury.
Peanuts aren't served on a plane just in case someone with a peanut allergy has a bad time as result. Peanuts (and other things people are deathly allergic to) are also not served or used as ingredients in restaurants where there is a risk of cross contamination.
What you've done is bring back the equivalence to a public place so that an absurd argument can be made about banning peanuts wholesale.
As far as any non-public situation goes, it's a simple discussion of consent and it's easy: just ask for it instead of feeling entitled to it.
No. It means you get a restraining order if there's a threat and contact the police the moment they violate it. We already have laws for that type of thing.
Preventing anyone ever possibly taking pictures where you could be in the background is not the answer.
According to some of the people here that would mean she had no right to participate in a regular activity.