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.
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
Deterrence
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Insurance
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Deterrence
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 ]
Re: Deterrence
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Destroying Isn't New
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 ]
Re: Deterrence
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Destroying Isn't New
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Destroying Isn't New
Please think of the children!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Insurance
http://www.lockline.com/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Destroying Isn't New
[ link to this | view in thread ]