Fines And A Destroyed Phone For A Topless Cameraphone Snap Shot

from the details-please? dept

Rather than banning camera phones outright, we're always suggesting that the focus be on criminal acts done via the phone -- so it at first seems encouraging to find out that a man in Australia has been fined for taking camera phone photos of a topless woman. However, there are some things that are not entirely clear from the story. Apparently, the man took the photo at the beach -- but it's unclear what the situation was under which the photo was taken. If the woman were just lying topless on the beach, a public place, where any expectation of privacy doesn't exist, it's hard to see how this is a problem. Assuming she was just sitting there, for any passerby to see her topless, then how is it a violation for the guy to take her picture? Lots of people in public places have their photos taken all the time, and it's not considered a violation of privacy. Because this woman decides to take her shirt off, it's suddenly a violation? If there's more to the story (such as the fact that she was in a changing room, or something along those lines), then this interpretation might change, but otherwise, it's tough to see what the big deal is. Also, at the end of the story, it's noted that the guy's phone will be destroyed. Talk about irrational acts. This isn't a dog who bit someone. It's a phone. It's owner took the photo, why should the phone be destroyed? What's to stop the guy from getting another camera phone? Also, since the point of most camera phones is to take a photo and move it somewhere off the phone, you have to wonder if "destroying the phone" actually destroyed the picture in question.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Permanent4, 1 Dec 2004 @ 12:32pm

    Deterrence

    Maybe if the guy realizes he's going to have to pay for a new phone every time he takes a picture of a topless woman, he might think twice about doing it again. Camera phones ain't cheap, y'know...

    link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    data64, 1 Dec 2004 @ 1:18pm

    Insurance

    I guess some companies will start selling insurance for your phone now.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Dec 2004 @ 2:09pm

    Re: Deterrence

    Hmm. That's a bit like nation-building by bombing the hell out of it.

    No, there seems to be a chance that the phot-snapping incident was innocent, and that the guy couldn't have reasonably predicted the outcome. What kind of deterrent will be established by randomly damaging camera phones?

    link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Dec 2004 @ 3:44pm

    Re: Deterrence

    There's no justice like angry mob justice.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  5. identicon
    Steve Mueller, 1 Dec 2004 @ 5:58pm

    Destroying Isn't New

    Also, at the end of the story, it's noted that the guy's phone will be destroyed. Talk about irrational acts. This isn't a dog who bit someone. It's a phone. It's owner took the photo, why should the phone be destroyed? What's to stop the guy from getting another camera phone? Also, since the point of most camera phones is to take a photo and move it somewhere off the phone, you have to wonder if "destroying the phone" actually destroyed the picture in question.
    As one reader mentioned, forcing the guy to buy another phone could serve as a deterrent. I can almost hear people saying "That's what the fine does!" However, it's not the same. The guy will have to go through the pain of activating a new phone, entering his contacts and so on.

    If you think about it, it's not much different than police impounding cars used in drug deals. The cars didn't do anything wrong, and these people can buy a new car, but it's another tactic to discourage the crime.

    However, I agree that this is probably overkill in this case. Confiscating a user's property should be saved for serious crimes and criminals. Unless the guy had a record of voyeurism or they found other inappropriately taken topless photos on the phone, he should probably get his phone back.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  6. identicon
    Wilson, 1 Dec 2004 @ 6:37pm

    Re: Deterrence

    Local news in Australia reported that the judge ordered the phone to be returned to its owner, but the owner declined and asked the police to destroy it.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  7. identicon
    Kjfa Gfop, 2 Dec 2004 @ 1:48am

    Re: Destroying Isn't New

    You know, if the police impounded cars used to break traffic laws, even on the first offence, I bet a lot fewer people would break them and fewer innocent children would die on the roads.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    thecaptain, 2 Dec 2004 @ 5:12am

    Re: Destroying Isn't New

    You know, if the speed limit were reduced to 10 mph, I'd say the number of innocent children that die in road accidents would plummet even MORE.

    Please think of the children!

    link to this | view in thread ]

  9. identicon
    Freedster, 2 Dec 2004 @ 4:17pm

    Re: Insurance

    They already do:

    http://www.lockline.com/

    link to this | view in thread ]

  10. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2004 @ 8:57am

    Re: Destroying Isn't New

    Yes, think of the children like Walmart does by employee thousands of them to make cheap cell hpones for bloated American perverts with nothing else to do but collect jerk off material via their camera phone ...

    link to this | view in thread ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.