Proposed SA photography restrictions

[digitor]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008 ... 180276.htm

The SA Attorney General said "We want to give people privacy so that they don't find themselves being filmed without their knowing it."

It'll be interesting to see where this leads!

Cheers

[Smurph]

The Rann govt, is seriously going down hill IMHO.

Hopefully, they will limit this to the filming of private acts of a lewd nature, or something like that - not every day photography. Just how much of the stuff we see on the news and in the papers stock footage/stills of people walking around a shopping precinct or the like?

[foonji]

Can be good or bad, depends on the exact target... if its is correctly targeted at the members of the community who engaged in peeping tom acts...

otherwise it will become an excuse for people to whing at a genuine photographer.

Im moving to brissy so i won't have to worry about this

[who]

From another reputable source

http://www.news.com.au/technology/story ... 39,00.html

The proposed laws will make it illegal to photograph a person who is undressed without their knowledge and where a person is using a toilet or engaging in sexual acts not normally conducted in public.

That doesn't sound like a limitation that will trouble us - have to wait for the exact legislation to be sure and check the detail for any hidden items.

[Big Red]

From another reputable source

http://www.news.com.au/technology/story ... 39,00.html

The proposed laws will make it illegal to photograph a person who is undressed without their knowledge and where a person is using a toilet or engaging in sexual acts not normally conducted in public.

That doesn't sound like a limitation that will trouble us - have to wait for the exact legislation to be sure and check the detail for any hidden items.

surely you would be aware you were undressed

[who]

No, no, no -- you cannot photography without their knowledge a person who is undressed.

ie..... those types who hide cameras to capture flatmates, family, etc (ie twisted).

I'd be more interested in what sexual acts are NORMALLY conducted in public

[Glen]

surely you would be aware you were undressed

[libertyterran]

I don't have any problem with the new rule. As discussed by other members, it targets "photographers" who shoot "undressed ppl" with hidden cam.

[gstark]

a person who is undressed without their knowledge

Don't you just love the English Mangluage?

How does one get to be undressed without their knowledge?

and where a person is using a toilet or engaging in sexual acts not normally conducted in public.

So ... which sexual acts are normally conducted in public?

Of course, if you're a footballer for Sydney's Bulldogs, then you're probably in the habit of using a toilet to engage in sexual acts.

[Killakoala]

I wonder how the official photographer of the Maslin Beach Olympics will fair

[DanielA]

I was under the impression that people were already protected in cases where they had an expectation of privacy. e.g. Toilets, change rooms, etc.
On the TV news they mentioned that they were targeting up-skirt pervs.

I'm sure some ignorant person will stuff the new law up, like usual.
Or perhaps they'll do like the UK and call photographers terrorists.

Maybe they could ban mobile phone cameras. That would be a positive move...

Daniel

[foonji]

How does one get to be undressed without their knowledge?

by being drugged and taken advantage of whilst not on this earth, but with the fairies.

[Oneputt]

I think that in a public place you lose any right to privacy. I guess what needs to be clearly defined is a public place.

[who]

So far I can't see any bill available on this...... happy for others to look and prove me wrong?

[Viz]

How does one get to be undressed without their knowledge?

I have experienced it... but the explanation is the difficult part.

Seriously, I agree in principle with the changes (subject to how it is actually implemented) if it regards photography directly violating someone's personal boundaries taking place within a public space (ie placing cameras to photo someone's undies). I try to be a thoughtful public photographer myself. I think photography should roughly obey the laws of acceptable societal behaviour - would you think it acceptable to try to position your head to look up a woman's skirt?

[CraigVTR]

I'd be more interested in what sexual acts are NORMALLY conducted in public

Tonsil hockey.

[Alpha_7]

Dry humping ?

[Viz]

Dry humping ?

Slow dance

[who]

OK - it is in yesterday's daily Hansard for SA House of Assembly

Link : http://hansard.parliament.sa.gov.au/pag ... 05&c=2&e=1

I'll skip the waffle and quote the new section that is proposed....... emphasis (bold, italic, underline) is my addition.

4—Insertion of section 23AA

Proposed new section 23AA creates an offence to engage in indecent filming with a maximum penalty of $10 ,000 or imprisonment for 2 years. The clause defines indecent filming to mean filming of—

(a) another person in a state of undress in circumstances in which a reasonable person would expect to be afforded privacy; or

(b) another person engaged in a private act in circumstances in which a reasonable person would expect to be afforded privacy; or

(c) another person's private region in circumstances in which a reasonable person would not expect that the person's private region might be filmed.

The clause proposes a defence if the indecent filming occurred with the consent of the person filmed or if the indecent filming was undertaken by a licensed investigation agent within the meaning of the Security and Investigation Agents Act 1995 and occurred in the course of obtaining evidence in connection with a claim for compensation, damages, a payment under a contract or some other benefit.

An offence is also committed if a person distributes a moving or still picture obtained by indecent filming. This carries a maximum penalty of $10 ,000 or imprisonment for 2 years. It is a defence to prove—

(a) that the person filmed consented to the distribution of the moving or still picture; or

(b) that the defendant did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, that the indecent filming was without the person's consent; or

(c) that the indecent filming was undertaken by a licensed investigation agent within the meaning of the Security and Investigation Agents Act 1995 and occurred in the course of obtaining evidence in connection with a claim for compensation, damages, a payment under a contract or some other benefit and the distribution of the moving or still picture was for a purpose connected with that claim.

So, in my opinion, it does not worry us as photographers -- although I would be careful pruning if you ever accidentally gained an upskirt style pic (I did once at a very drunken work party - dead cockroach imitations in a mini skirt seem funny at the time but was best to exorcise the negative and print back to the model