DSLRUsers.com

Quote

TACKLING CAMERA PERVERTS

Beaches and other public areas could become camera-free zones with a national working committee meeting next month to consider new legislation.

Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock said uniform laws were needed to protect women and children at beaches, on public transport and at sporting events.

He said unauthorised photography was "clearly a problem" and the new laws could result in a maximum two-year jail sentence.

The reforms follow several recent well-published reports of so-called "up-skirting".

At the Australian Open in January, three men were charged in separate incidents for using small hidden cameras to secretly film up women's skirts.

A man was also caught in January taking photographs up women's shirts on Melbourne trams.

The Standing Committee of Attorney-Generals, made up of all State attorney-generals, released a discussion paper on the need for new laws to control unauthorised photography.

Surf Lifesaving Australia was among those who made a submission. It is paricularly concerned at protecting its 40,000 young members.

"We have a duty of care to protect our members," Sean O'Connell , of Surf Lifesaving Australia, said.

"There is no way of regulating how photos of children are used.

"We just want some clarity and consistency in the legislation."

Coogee beach was hit by a spate of voyeures who used their mobile phone cameras to take photographs of female sunbathers, some of them topless.

A 25-year-old labourer became the first man convicted of using his phone for offensive purposes in December 2004 and was fined $500.

Some men have been spotted using digital cameras to snap topless beachgoers.

Unquote
This is in a post here:http://www.potd.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2166&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=100

It should probably be known that Phillip Ruddock isn't recognised for his startling intellect.

That said, I'd love to hear what constitutes this so-called "unauthorised photography" when there's already the rule and law of public domain.

I mean, duh, images of the upskirt nature are a violation of privacy, but a person sunbathing? That's public domain.

Here is how we can react:http://www.petitiononline.com/ausphoto/petition.html
I know this comes from another forum but as we are all concerned

Perhaps Gary could post something like this onto the forum in such a way that we could add a thousand signatures to it and send it to Mr Ruddock?

"Sir,
New laws being proposed by the Attorney General Phillip Ruddock to "protect women and children at beaches, on Public Transport and at sporting events" should be carefully scrutinised before legislation. Whilst no one would argue that the misuse of these types of images should be severely punished (and the perpetrators banned from owning or carrying a camera) Mr Ruddock should take great care that he does not curtail the rights of photographers to capture their vision of the world as it exists before their eyes. It has been suggested to me that statistically the number of perverts who take images for their own misuse is very very low. Police involved in these types of crime prevention tell me that they are much more likely to find boxes filled with catalogues from department stores depicting children in pyjamas and underwear in the homes of suspects.
If this is the case then I hope Mr Ruddock carefully balances the rights of photographers against any legislation required. It would seem that current laws are sufficient to prosecute those who use a camera for offensive purposes and indeed prosecutions have been successfully made. By all means the Attorney General should legislate to put in place laws to enable the prosecution of those who misuse imagery by posting to inappropriate websites. He should not, however, restrict the rights of photographers to take photographs at the beach. The beach belongs to everybody, bathers, walkers, shell collectors. Fishermen, painters and photographers all have a right to enjoy the place where the land meets the sea. Furthermore, the rights of women to sunbake topless at the beach should not curtail the rights of photographers to take photographs at the beach. If these women wish not to be included in a photograph then they should cover up or go to a beach specifically designated for topless bathing at which photography could be restricted. Those people who blatantly abuse their responsibilities when using a camera can be currently dealt with under the current offensive behaviour laws."

Anyone want to write an ed-op on this for Chimp?

It would probably be a lot more useful if everyone here wrote an actual paper letter to the man, and sent copies to their MPs (state and federal). I'd also CC the opposition (such as it is) shadow AG, and The Greens as well.

For your convenience:

The Hon Philip Ruddock MP
Attorney General.
Parliament House
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Tel: (02) 6277 7300
Fax: (02) 6273 4102
Email: P.Ruddock@aph.gov.au

The rest of the mob can be found here:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/mi-alpha.asp

We are being spied on by traffic cameras, speed cameras and every type of security and crowd control camera available to man, all authorised of course, and all in public places. We should be used to being on public display, while being in public. A bather, baring all on a crowded beach, is wanting to be admired, but a camera up the kilt, is an offence.
Overreaction by Governments, on issues like this, are all too common. It's easier to have a blanket rule, than sorting out the real offenders.

glamy wrote:Here is how we can react:http://www.petitiononline.com/ausphoto/petition.html
I know this comes from another forum but as we are all concerned

just signed... #413

Signature 713!

We all should sign... Solidarity!

#27 for me

# 817

#869 for me

Signature #875

# 896

Nnnnsic wrote:It should probably be known that Phillip Ruddock isn't recognised for his startling intellect.

You mean the former Minister for Deporting Australians?

Nnnnsic wrote:That said, I'd love to hear what constitutes this so-called "unauthorised photography" when there's already the rule and law of public domain.

I strongly suspect it will come down to "have paid the local authority the relevant fee and submitted paperwork fully explaining the photos to be taken. My bet is that the legislation will be very broad (along the lines of the existing "offensive behaviour" stuff) but applied selectively so that tourists don't find themselves in care of Ruddock's former deparment too often.

Greg B wrote:I would be appalled to have any reflection placed on me based on anything that Howard and his cronies say or do.

Sorry Greg, but you live in a democracy. Your government represents you and is answerable to you. If you don't like what they're doing, stop electing them. Saying "I wish the govt wasn't so evil, but the alternative is to vote for the Democrats/Greens, so I vote Labour/Liberal" is endorsing the behaviour you claim to dislike.

The great thing about democracy, especially right now, is that you can actively try to change the government if you don't like it. We're in the middle of a NSW state election, and we're about the have an Oz federal one. If you want change, get out there and campaign for the party of your choice. Sitting on your butt whining just annoys people.

moz wrote:Sorry Greg, but you live in a democracy. Your government represents you and is answerable to you. If you don't like what they're doing, stop electing them. Saying "I wish the govt wasn't so evil, but the alternative is to vote for the Democrats/Greens, so I vote Labour/Liberal" is endorsing the behaviour you claim to dislike.

The great thing about democracy, especially right now, is that you can actively try to change the government if you don't like it. We're in the middle of a NSW state election, and we're about the have an Oz federal one. If you want change, get out there and campaign for the party of your choice. Sitting on your butt whining just annoys people.

However, a democracy is only effective to the extent that the voting population is informed. How many governments get voted in based on a pork barrelling, inappropriate promises of tax cuts or interest rate cuts? How many governments remain in power through the use of fear and division as opposed to policy? How effective is a democracy when a government has a majority in both houses? But, as I said, how effective is a democracy when most voters believe what they are told?

P

moz wrote: If you don't like what they're doing, stop electing them.

I don't, and I didn't.

moz wrote:Saying "I wish the govt wasn't so evil, but the alternative is to vote for the Democrats/Greens, so I vote Labour/Liberal" is endorsing the behaviour you claim to dislike.

You don't vote Labor/Liberal. They are not one party. It isn't a choice between Democrats/Greens or Labor/Liberal - frankly that is ridiculous.

There are only two entities which could form a Government, they are Labor and the Coalition. Neither is perfect, it is a matter of voting for the better of the two. I think there is a significant degree of difference.

moz wrote:The great thing about democracy, especially right now, is that you can actively try to change the government if you don't like it. We're in the middle of a NSW state election, and we're about the have an Oz federal one. If you want change, get out there and campaign for the party of your choice. Sitting on your butt whining just annoys people.

Comment about policies and behaviour with which we do, or do not agree is hardly whining. You seem to be suggesting that unless you are actively involved in the election process by campaigning, we have no right to comment on matters of concern. Ridiculous number 2.

Australia is NOT a democracy. Australia is basically a gaggle of feuding states.

Number 345 for me. I wonder who caught 666.

Old Bob wrote:Number 345 for me. I wonder who caught 666.

Not I, I was 444

Chris dont you mean Australia is a Socialist Country with 7 communes?

1039!

bwhinnen wrote:

Old Bob wrote:Number 345 for me. I wonder who caught 666.

Not I, I was 444

Some guy in Perth, Michael by name

Greg B wrote:You don't vote Labor/Liberal. They are not one party.

I'm sorry that that was ambiguous - I'm trying to suggest that the choice is not simply "which of the greater evils do I prefer", that there are other options.

Greg B wrote:There are only two entities which could form a Government, they are Labor and the Coalition. Neither is perfect, it is a matter of voting for the better of the two.

That is exactly where we disagree. You would rather endorse a corrupt MP or party then complain that they continue to be corrupt, I would rather not. What keeps them in power is people with your attitude, because rather than voting for what you believe in you vote for the "least bad of the two choices", when those two choices are all you let yourself see.

One advantage of STV is that you can preference down the line and in some parts of the country you can even exhaust your preferences. FFS, even forming your own "Greg and His mates for Decent Government" party is better than just voting for the least bad of two parties that are caught up in a race for the bottom.

You seem to be suggesting that unless you are actively involved in the election process by campaigning, we have no right to comment on matters of concern.

I'm suggesting that if you don't like what you see, then rather than complaining about it on a photo board you could actually get out there and try to produce a change for the better. Frankly, I don't care what exactly you think is better, I'd be happy to see more people become involved in the political process. I'd rather be campaigning against active One Nation supporters than people who just sit on the couch going 'they all suck".

Admittedly I'm an activist and have been for a long time. My basic orientation is to work to make things better (for whatever definition of better I happen to subscribe to at the time). Most people aren't like that, but I have great difficulty empathising with people who go "I don't like it but I'm not willing to try to change it". Sorry about that.

Moz -
Thanks for staying on track, directing your comments to the original topic, and providing a genuine suggestion of how we can effectively voice our opinions.

As both a woman and a mother of a 6 year old son I am concerned with inappropriate usage of media (be it cameras, video, phones or perverts), but I am also mature enough to accept responsibility for the way we behave and display ourselves in public arenas.

As an enthaustic photographer I believe I have every right to capture 'public' events (unless signage states otherwise i.e. NO CAMERAS ALLOWED). I also believe I have no right to invade private havens.

I fully support legislation that protects people (irrespective of sex or age) in private situations, and believe the key is correctly defining 'reasonable expectation of Privacy'.

Once again thanks for adding something positive to the forum - I will be snail mailing Mr. Ruddock

Rgds Deb

DebT wrote:Thanks for ... providing a genuine suggestion of how we can effectively voice our opinions.

Thanks for the kind words.

I will be snail mailing Mr. Ruddock

Yay! Good on you!

Just so any curious people are wondering where this thread came from - I have split it out of another thread on a slightly different topic to make this one easier to find.

#1954

1962 ... That was a good year

If this petition fails, the next step will be to go out on mass taking photos and clog up the courts.

/signed

Guys, next week, in NSW, is our state election. At polling, we need to impress upon the State memebrs who maybe out kissing babies, that what their federal counterparts are looking to do is unacceptable.

Also, we should approach the manufacturers (Sony Aust, Canon Aust, Nikon Aust, etc) and suggest that they lobby government on this issue. Restrictions on imaging are likely to have a direct impact on sales.

Does anyone have senior contacts at these organisations?

P

phillipb wrote:1962 ... That was a good year

If this petition fails, the next step will be to go out on mass taking photos and clog up the courts.

I like the way you think!

Signed, #2170

And I think we all going to show them we can photograph in open public... on by next week's mini-meet

Let's not let the perverts ruin everyone lives by over reacting. No snaps of my kids playing on the beach or in the park? None of my kids playing sports at school?

What's next, Burqas for women and kids?

lets have an old fashion protest

... and I´m number 3157.

Also, good point Reschsmooth... surely the manufacturers wouldn´t want limitations on the usability of their equipment?