Every week I receive emails from readers and visitors to the site asking me questions about photography and photo-technique. Many of them are of general interest and I’ve always wanted to share my answers with everyone. This is the place for it. If you have a question of general interest, ask me in the box. I may edit your question for fit, spelling and grammar but try to keep them short and to-the-point. If you have specific queries email me at info@tomang.com, or use the ‘email me’ button. As I am often on the road, there may be some days to wait for an answer. Please come back to check as I have not set up RSS.
Please look through the earlier Q&A: there's a similar question to yours. But I'll add to what I've said. To answer you question, and at risk of sounding sententious, I approach photographing people like all of my relations with people (or try to): with honesty, openness, directness. I guarantee not one was taken 'subtly' as you call it: every shot was in full knowledge of the subject - sometimes with explicit permission, sometimes with indifference. By 'subtly' I think you mean 'sneakily'? I wouldn't post anything I shot sneakily, unless e.g. I was in a group of hostages. And yes, in some countries it's illegal simply to take a sneaky shot, let alone post it online. So watch it. You sleep more easily when you're open and honest about everything, including your photography.
Laws? Rules? I don't know what you're talking about. I know that many people write and teach rules of composition. I have no time for them, and I'm prepared to go as far as to say I despise them. If you follow rules, you follow the crowd. If that's what you want to do, it's your creation to do what you want. But your question suggests that you're half-way to apostasy: admitting the possibility that an image could work despite defying laws and rules tells you something about the laws and rules doesn't it? My suggestion: delete them, empty the trash, and see the world for what it is, without their blinkering effect.
Wow. I wish I had that kind of gear when I started. I photographed two books with a 10D. D'you know what, I'm going to be boring and suggest you learn how to use that 50mm properly first (by the way it's effectively about 75mm). Then you won't need to ask anyone the question; you'd know the answer. And no, IS is not essential but sure is useful.
I work 90% of time on auto white balance - it does the job mostly. To save you a lot of bother, you could shoot in RAW and adjust white balance to your heart's content. Shoot a grey card as reference if you have time. Of course you can use any 'wrong' setting to foce a shift in white balance. The main problem is what we used to call 'crossed curves' - colour balance in shade is different from sunlit areas. Some RAW converters allow you to adjust this e.g. Adobe Camera Raw.
Almost all point-and-shoot cameras and many dSLR zooms offer a macro mode: see if that doesn't get you close enough. Many zooms offer close focusing at the wide-angle end, which is not much help as what you gain in getting closer you lose in lower magnification. If your insects are smaller than, say, a bumblebee in size, you can try screwing close-up lenses onto your dSLR zoom. If that's not enough, try using extension tubes. The most costly, but best, solution is indeed to buy a macro lens. For insects I suggest 100mm or longer.