Comments on: Invading privacy

By: michael

michael — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:18 +0000

Taking and posting photos of individuals in public places is very different than photos that were taken in the privacy of your own home with individuals that you believe to be your partner. You can always debate whether photos taken at a beach in full public view hold the same privacy as those taken without your consent.

But, always take the high ground and common sense. Does that person have a reasonable right to expect privacy?

In relation to DLB and the uproar over the most recent photos. Those photos came about because a former partner decided to sell to the Yellow Press. Photos that were taken in the privacy of his own home while in a committed relationship. There was an expectation of privacy.

By: bernd

bernd — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:15:12 +0000

Great that you will not be posting pics made with hidden cameras anymore. I don’t think that these pervs or their labor should be given any further platform. Thank you. Makes me feel better enjoying the pics on your page.

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:41:30 +0000

Don’t you think there’s a difference between looking at somebody in a public space, and taking photos of somebody in a public space and then republishing those photos in a very public, global space? Assume for example that this guy in your photo was getting changed under the assumption that the only people who would be looking are those who are there at the beach with him. Is it right for you to take that photo and then republish for a much wider audience than could possibly have been there at the beach?

In Australia we have laws to protect people’s privacy, even in public spaces. You can’t go to the beach and take photos of other people without their permission. It’s illegal to do so. That means that even in public spaces you are entitled to a measure of “privacy”, if you’re there you can look, but you cannot document it unless you are protected by specific laws relating to journalism. Taking photos of guys because they’re hot and you can see them naked is not okay. Taking photos of guys because they’re naked and in the context journalistically relevant, might be.

I think that people need to understand the difference in context between a few people at the beach and photos published globally on the Internet. I don’t mind going to a nude beach because I know the only people who are looking are there for the same reason. But I’d be severely pissed if somebody was lurking in the bushes taking photos and publishing them on the net. Hell, even if they were standing out in the open taking photos.

By: Tony (LT)

Tony (LT) — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:17:13 +0000

The way I see it, if you are naked and or doing something in a place that presumes a certain amount of privacy, then it is not fair to have pictures/video of it out there without your consent. Hotel rooms, locker rooms, your own back yard, etc. BUT, if you are in a public place that does not presume privacy (streets, alley, beaches, etc.) then you have put yourself in a position to be exposed and have no right to complain. Some people might argue that a locker room is a public space and therefore free game, but most locker rooms are parts of clubs, gyms, and other organizations where you are part of a membership and that to me makes it “private.”
I have taken pictures in the buff in some public, but secluded, places. If some was to get a snap of me getting snapped in that situation, then all I can blame is myself because I’m the one who decided to drop my britches out in the open.

By: Beej

Beej — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:57:18 +0000

Good on you B, that’s a bold move to take – and it was good of you not to re-post Black’s photos.

By: rich

rich — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:50:01 +0000

In Australia (and in the UK)you don’t need permission to take pictures of people in public – that’s how news cameras can film whoever they want and how government surveillance cameras can work. Private spaces are different – that’s they’re private. People should be able to assume that they won’t have their privacy invaded and can act how they like within the law. Naked people in public spaces fair game. Naked people in changing rooms are no go – they’re still private places.

The next step on from this is the debate around beats/cottages. If you were to find yourself in a cubical in a public toilet and you just happened to be having sex would are you there for in a public space or a private space? If it’s a public space, in theory you could be arrested for defecating in public if it’s private you can shag all you like. Not sure I’d like to test the theory though.

Keep posting, hope the week gets better.