And creepshots largely didn't meet the definition of that rule, because no one knew who the people in the pictures were.

Now, you can certainly wish the rule were something that would have blocked creepshots and doxxing. Like "information about anyone that they don't want a bunch of strangers on the Internet reading."

Reddit has tried to turn over the decisions about what to allow to a rule-based system instead of having to have any human discretion involved. I can see the appeal in wanting that (any google search for "technical solution for social problem" will describe why people keep on trying it), but it leads to things that obviously look absolutely crazy to outsiders.

Reddit probably needs to grow up and have some human discretion involved. It is going to collapse under its own weight without that.

And yes, I do think that information inciting or enabling real-life harassment is different from just a photo taken in public without the accompanying additional info.

What if those photos do leak information that could enable real-life harassement (like EXIF metadata, street sign, etc) . Can we trust the submitter to guarantee it never will? If it happens, who's to blame?

Those are both nuts. You handle the issue the way adults handle the issue:

1. Say "you can't post X."

2. Count on the fact that most people won't post X once you tell them not to (on pains of account sanction, which are already in place for rules against things like spam).

3. Deal with the complains of false positives and false negatives on a case-by-case basis.

Then they should be removed. Imgur (Reddit's favourite image hosting) already strips meta data.

If there's a face in that image, then there is the identity of a person in that image.

Taking a photo of someone in public and sharing it online does not constitute a breach of privacy. You do not have any expectation of privacy when you step out in public.