If you don't mind, and just for the exercise of the discussion, I would then like to turn the question around: what public good would there be in deciding that everyone could prohibit their photo to be taken?
Each law is there for a reason. We decide that the Press can take and publish pictures of events because there is a greater good in freedom of information. We decide that Police can film public grounds (or not, this depends on the country), because it may help public grounds to be safer for everybody. We decide that people can own objects, because without an incentive to feel responsible for their belongings, a whole category of social constructs will not work for most people (e.g. the
Tragedy of the commons). We decide that people can "own" rights to their creation (the principle of copyright), because there is then an incentive for them to create. Now you tell use that we should decide that people should "own" their own image (something they did not create, they are simply born with it).
There is no
immanent right to to one's possessions, images, anything. Each right needs to be enshrined in human legislation and human legislation is, or should be, based on some idea of public good. This is why, in democratic countries, laws are passed by elected representatives of the public.
Now, you tell me, in substance, that you have a right to prohibit anyone to take an image of your face, body, etc... This is not true: you only have rights as far as there is a law to defend them and there will only be a law if your elected representatives are convinced that it is in the interest of the general public to make a such law.
Now, please tell me: what public good is there to gain in passing such a law? What would the public gain in spending considerable ressources (tribunal, police, etc...) to insure that no picture of you (or me, Asher, Tom, etc...) is taken without your prior agreement?
It is an honest question, even if I mainly set it here for the sake of the discussion: I honestly do not know. I don't like my picture to be taken myself and I normally avoid it. I also avoid networks like Facebook, whose purpose is to publish, distribute and tag pictures of their members. But these are just my personal feelings and they weight little in the discussion. The question is not me or you or Asher or Tom, the question is the public good. So let me ask the question again:
what public good would there be in deciding that everyone could prohibit their photo to be taken?