bobatkins Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 <em>"A sneak peek up a woman's skirt with a cellphone camera, small digital camera or video camera.<p>The woman, possibly walking down the street or riding an escalator, may never know her image has been recorded and later uploaded to the Internet for the world to see.<p>Canadian courts have been unable to do much with the few shutterbugs who have been caught. Some have been convicted of mischief and handed fines or probation. Usually, cases never make it before a judge.<p>That will change Nov. 1 when voyeurism is listed as a new offence in the Criminal Code.<p>...Voyeurism, which is not limited to child victims, is punishable by up to five years in prison if prosecuted by indictment, or up to six months following a summary conviction...."</em><p> <a href="http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=2ca8a0f6-ecf0-4e24-b5c7-873ca26120d2">http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=2ca8a0f6-ecf0-4e24-b5c7-873ca26120d2</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gup Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Perhaps in prison they'll learn what it's like to have their privacy violated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted November 14, 2005 Author Share Posted November 14, 2005 I'm not sure. 5 years in prison seem a tad on the harsh side for this. You'd get less than that for stealing a car or hitting someone over the head with a beer bottle.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emre Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Delete that obscene picture now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 How are they defining voyeurism? How do they prove it? Anyone who has ever taken a photo of the audience at an outdoor concert from the stage has tons of upskirts. How do you separate that from someone who took the same photo from the front row because they knew they would get upskirts? These laws always have the problem that they either can't be enforced or are used against completely innocent people. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted November 14, 2005 Author Share Posted November 14, 2005 How do they know? See http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00E3ob They are specially trained to spot deviants and they have mind readers so they not only know WHAT you did, but WHY you did it. The first clue is that you are seen in possession of a camera while doing things not normally considered to be illegal. That's a dead giveaway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprouty Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 <I>"Anyone who has ever taken a photo "of" the audience..."</I><P>I can only assume Jeff meant to type "<I>from</I> the audience", or else I want to go to the concerts he goes to... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tholte Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Convicted terrorists don't even get five years in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted November 16, 2005 Author Share Posted November 16, 2005 <em>Contrary to what has been said here, the state of mind is meant to and has the effect of *limiting* the applicability of the law</em> <p> So it's not what you do but what you're thinking when you do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 What's a "summary conviction?" www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 "Under the Criminal Code, summary conviction offences are offences of a less serious nature." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 . . . less serious nature than an indictable offence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 So what if I shoot a picture of a crowd, and some chick unknowingly is flashing her nipple? Is that illegal? What if I shoot a picture of a friend and some lady happens to be bending over to tie her shoe, and is flashing her panties? What a bunch of crap. This is a very grey area and should be approached with caution by legislators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_ob Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 ... it looks like it is scary to take a camera on Toronto streets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_vieitas Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 - "Voyeurism," a new crime, is defined as the secret observation or recording of a person where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and the person is observed in a state of nudity or sexual activity. I think it's safe to still have your camera, as this kind of law will still be based on intent. If you (as stated above) by mistake took a picture of a flasher they might let that go, but if you posted and highlighted the subject on the net, or sold it. Well that may not go over too well. There are some really grey area's but I believe that the law is not more so in place to proscute them but more as a deturrant. Now that people know that it is against the law it is more unlikely to happen. Just my opinion thats all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now