Outrage Of Modesty - Mobile Phone Photographers

[Aussie Pete]

This is actually nothing new in Singapore. There have been many discussions on blog aggregators and various online forums on the subject of people taking photographs of unsuspecting or unwilling victims using mobile phone cameras.

Interestingly (or surprisingly) enough, it is quite common to see comments supporting the photographers, even when the offensive picture has been taken from behind and underneath a woman wearing a skirt on an escalator. Many people do not seem to take offence, or in fact see anything wrong with this behaviour. This to me is bewildering. It is, without a doubt, an extreme invasion of privacy.

I should also add that the promotion of snaps taken by 'detective photographers' (commonly of commuters on public transport), on sites such as the Straits Times Stomp forum, does nothing to dissuade this errant behaviour.

In the latest case to make news this week, most of the 'offensive' pictures were of ladies' breasts while fully clothed. The fact that the women were completely unaware that a pervert was taking pictures of them, seems to lead to most of the comments and discussions online suggesting that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what this person has done. In most other countries and situations, this behaviour is totally unacceptable and punishable by law.

The man in question was caught with more than 500 offensive photos in his mobile phone. A woman filed a complaint against him, after he took a picture of her chest at a shopping centre.

[FULL STORY]

 

[Agoraphobic]

I always thought that "permission" was needed to take a person's photo, unless that person is a "public figure."

Laws have not been updated to cope with changes in technology, hence the current practice of "intrusion" cannot be dealt with, short of the subject person snatching the photographer's iPhone and smashing it there and then.

I don't think lawmakers want any change, they're happy collecting fees and conservancy charges. It is up to citizen action groups, or principled individuals to take the matter into their own hands. I won't like anyone taking photos of myself or anyone in my family without our consent, and I will support anyone who feels the same. Good for the woman who complained about the pervert.

Hey, in Oz, does anyone stand outside a Hell's Angels clubhouse and take photos of their cool bikes and members with their Samsung phones?

 

[jw5]

I always thought that "permission" was needed to take a person's photo, unless that person is a "public figure."

Laws have not been updated to cope with changes in technology, hence the current practice of "intrusion" cannot be dealt with, short of the subject person snatching the photographer's iPhone and smashing it there and then.

I don't think lawmakers want any change, they're happy collecting fees and conservancy charges. It is up to citizen action groups, or principled individuals to take the matter into their own hands. I won't like anyone taking photos of myself or anyone in my family without our consent, and I will support anyone who feels the same. Good for the woman who complained about the pervert.

Hey, in Oz, does anyone stand outside a Hell's Angels clubhouse and take photos of their cool bikes and members with their Samsung phones?

What can we do if someone takes our photo without permission?
What SHOULD we do?