Posts by Mark Harris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think a lot of these creeps just try it on.
That they do. Everyone has a feeling that they know what "privacy" is, but bugger all actually have read the Act - they just work from their gut, and I suspect many of them have the equivalent of chronic candida overgrowth.
-
I lie, I wasn't in a suit. I would probably have been wearing a leather jacket, though - (see http://www.flickr.com/photos/nzlemming/3078771193/ from earlier in the evening)
-
Short anecdote:
I was taking some crappy night time shots with my brand new Fuji S305 (yes it was some time back, 04/09/03) and the reason they weren't so hot is that I was quite pissed. I think I was waiting for Mrs Harris to pick me up. Anyway, these shots were around Molesworth St, which has some very photogenic buildings in it - Parliament, the GA Library, St Paul's Cathedral and the National Library, for a few. Not having a tripod on me, I was resting the camera on bins and walls and bollards to try to keep it steady. Having literally crouched in the bushes in Parliament grounds without incident, I was mightily surprised when an Armourguard security person approached me on the steps of the NatLib and told me that I couldn't take photographs there. Now I was in a suit, but still worse for wear. Anyway, I told her she was wrong and there were no security concerns about taking photographs in a public place and she should call the Police in if she thought otherwise. I must have been authoritative enough, because she backed off and didn't call the boys in blue, but she and her associate hung around the bottom of the steps (while I ostentatiously took some more crappy photos of St Paul's) until my lady wife arrived to pick me up.Moral:
Most people (Police and security included, although not in this anecdote) have no idea about the legality of public photography . AFAIK, it is legal to take photographs of anything in a public place, unless there are specific signs forbidding it (like inside the art gallery).Graeme, oh wise one? Any clarification to add?
-
Fucking brilliant!
-
Sorry, forgot to quote the key point:
Anderson J makes the point even more strongly:
[267] ... Freedom of expression is the first and last trench in the protection of liberty. All of the rights affirmed by NZBORA are protected by that particular right. Just as truth is the first casualty of war, so suppression of truth is the first objective of the despot. In my view, the development of modern communications media, including for example the world wide web, has given historically unprecedented exposure of and accountability for injustices, undemocratic practices and the despoliation of human rights. A new limitation on freedom of expression requires, in my respectful view, greater justification than that a reasonable person would be wounded in their feelings by the publication of true information of a personal nature which does not have the quality of legally recognised confidentiality.
-
As for your Sydney issues, Australians are all a bit odd anyway. Leave that den of inequity and return to your rightful home immediately.
-
I don't recall the detail of this decision, but there's an increasing number of constraints on the use of cameras, including on beaches in Sydney and "public pools" (which of course often aren't strictly public).
From Austlii - Hosking vs Runting 2004:
Michael Hosking is a well known presenter on New Zealand television and radio. He and his wife Marie separated in late 2002, and a women’s magazine, New Idea, ran a brief article previewing the couple’s first Christmas apart (without involvement from the Hoskings). To illustrate the article, the magazine used file photographs of Mike and Marie, but also wanted to print photographs of their twin eighteen-month old daughters, Ruby and Bella. Since their parents had not put the girls in the public eye since their birth, there were no photos available, so New Idea commissioned a freelance photographer, Simon Runting, to acquire pictures of the twins. He managed to do so, snapping pictures of the children in their pushchair while they were out shopping in central Auckland with their mother. Marie Hosking was unaware that the pictures had been taken until she was later notified by the magazine, prior to publication. She and her husband objected strongly to the proposed publication and applied for injunctive relief against the magazine. Randerson J refused the injunction at first instance, and the Hoskings appealed.
The findings of the Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal agreed unanimously that no injunction should be granted in these circumstances. The majority confirmed the existence of a privacy tort in New Zealand dealing with wrongful publication of private facts, and went some way to defining the ambit of that tort. Gault P and Blanchard J stated:[6]The scope of a cause, or causes, of action protecting privacy should be left to incremental development by future courts. ... In this jurisdiction it can be said that there are two fundamental requirements for a successful claim for interference with privacy:
The existence of facts in respect of which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy; and
Publicity given to those private facts that would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person.
However, their Honours stated that the plaintiffs failed to meet the burden of demonstrating that the children had reasonable expectations of privacy, and that publication would be highly (or significantly[7] ) offensive to an objective reasonable person.[8] In addition, all members of the Court agreed that damages rather than an injunction was the primary remedy for a breach of privacy, so even had the plaintiffs been able to meet the threshold they may well have failed to get the remedy they wanted.[9] The minority, however, took the view that the plaintiffs’ case could not get off the ground at all because there was no justification for having a privacy tort in New Zealand.
-
But what about the christian zombies?? No-one ever considers them...
-
Good points, but should we really be less concerned about the potential intrusion into our private lives simply 'cause it's a groovy corporation?
I think we've established that, if it's your front door/fence/visible from the street, it's not considered private anyway. The Hosking decision (Mike, not Rob) was pretty unambiguous about photos in a public place.
-
I was recently in your area and noticed that your house needed repainting/roof re-tiling/fence re-painting.
If he can tell that from the quality of the photos I've been seeing, good luck to him.