Student convicted of using a webcam to secretly film his room-mate in a gay encounter imprisoned

Threepwood · 21 May 2012 at 20:28

Glaucus said:
of. Course there wouldn't't like 99.9% of crimes, it requires some one to report it. Just because it isnt reported doesn't mean it isn't a crime.

Where do the press do this, every day. Examples please.

I'm not saying it isn't a crime

re-read please!

As for examples? Come on, do you think every bad story about someone in the press has the consent of the person involved? Hell, you dont even need to physically invade their privacy, the story itself does just that.

Raikiri · 21 May 2012 at 20:28

crinkleshoes said:
Sticking your lens through the curtains is exactly the same as hiding a camera in a house... this is done on a daily basis.

Actually, again, no it isn't. Assuming pictures are taken from a public place then it's perfectly legal.

crinkleshoes · 21 May 2012 at 20:30

Raikiri said:
Actually, again, no it isn't. Assuming pictures are taken from a public place then it's perfectly legal.

What if they touch the curtains?
What if they move the curtains?
What if...?

Come on, this is just silly semantics now...

Glaucus · 21 May 2012 at 20:30

shadesofgrey said:
I'm not saying it isn't a crime re-read please!

As for examples? Come on, do you think every bad story about someone in the press has the consent of the person involved? Hell, you dont even need to physically invade their privacy, the story itself does just that.

They don't need consent to run a story.

You do need consent to film in a private house.

It's not silly semantics you can't even give us one single example, yet you want us to believe its common and happens daily.

Threepwood · 21 May 2012 at 20:31

Meh, how public is your own bloody room?

Yes, perfectly legal but enough to ruin peoples live by invading thier privacy none-the-less dude.

Tefal · 21 May 2012 at 20:31

shadesofgrey said:
I'm not saying it isn't a crime re-read please!

As for examples? Come on, do you think every bad story about someone in the press has the consent of the person involved? Hell, you dont even need to physically invade their privacy, the story itself does just that.

yeah followed often by a hefty libel suit.

Raikiri · 21 May 2012 at 20:32

crinkleshoes said:
What if they touch the curtains?
What if they move the curtains?
What if...?

Come on, this is just silly semantics now...

No it isn't, pap pictures aren't taken from peoples garden whilst holding the curtains open. They use telephoto lenses from quite a distance.

Threepwood · 21 May 2012 at 20:32

Glaucus said:
They don't need consent to run a story.

You do need consent to film in a private house.

It's not silly semantics you can't even give us one single example, yet you want us to believe its common and happens daily.

So lets flip it. Say the guy is a publicly straight but actually gay footballer and the perfectly legal cameraman takes photos of said footballer kissing a man then prints them with the story...

... I cannot believe that folk are defending the press and the paps and dont see any kind of similarities here.

Tefal · 21 May 2012 at 20:32

crinkleshoes said:
What if they touch the curtains?
What if they move the curtains?
What if...?

Come on, this is just silly semantics now...

well then they're going to be done for vandalism as most people have these fancy inventions called windows between the world and their curtains.

Glaucus · 21 May 2012 at 20:33

shadesofgrey said:
So lets flip it. Say the guy is a gay footballer and the perfectly legal cameraman takes photos of said footballer then prints then with the story...

I'll make this easy for you.

Tefal · 21 May 2012 at 20:33

shadesofgrey said:
So lets flip it. Say the guy is a gay footballer and the perfectly legal cameraman takes photos of said footballer then prints then with the story...

in his bedroom with an illegally placed camera?

then no editor in the world would run that story because it would be a one way ticket to rapeville curtsey of the courts.

crinkleshoes · 21 May 2012 at 20:35

Glaucus said:
They don't need consent to run a story.

And that's abused constantly... once a story's out, it never gets back in the bottle... but that's a seperate issue...

It's not silly semantics you can't even give us one single example, yet you want us to believe its common and happens daily.

Well done, you're disconnected from the press... congratulations...

Tefal · 21 May 2012 at 20:36

crinkleshoes said:
And that's abused constantly... once a story's out, it never gets back in the bottle... but that's a seperate issue...

Well done, you're disconnected from the press... congratulations...

got a link to a story where the press hid a camera in somone's bedroom?

crinkleshoes · 21 May 2012 at 20:36

Tefal said:
yeah followed often by a hefty libel suit.

... unless proven true... and yes, the guy DID kiss the other guy... there was no false representation here.

If it's not true... it's still done the intended damage.

Glaucus · 21 May 2012 at 20:37

How so. Come on if I'm so disconnected. It'll be easy to find a picture taken illegally with invasion of privacy and other broken laws and where they have got away with it. Just one, will do as it so common it should be two this month, but I'll let you off with one.

Tefal · 21 May 2012 at 20:38

crinkleshoes said:
... unless proven true... and yes, the guy DID kiss the other guy... there was no false representation here.

If it's not true... it's still done the intended damage.

illegally obtained evidence cannot be submitted in court, hence no proof, hence you're gonna lose that and be raped for invading privacy on top of it.

Not to mention any loss of earnings from lost sponsors which could be immense.

Threepwood · 21 May 2012 at 20:38

Tefal said:
in his bedroom with an illegally placed camera?

then no editor in the world would run that story because it would be a one way ticket to rapeville curtsey of the courts.

No, a legal photo taken from a public place.

Are you suggesting that the guy sent to prison would have been totally fine, if only he had taken the video from a mile away from a public place?

Glaucus · 21 May 2012 at 20:39

Do you understand law?

Something legal is not illegal.

Raikiri · 21 May 2012 at 20:40

shadesofgrey said:
So lets flip it. Say the guy is a publicly straight but actually gay footballer and the perfectly legal cameraman takes photos of said footballer kissing a man then prints them with the story...

Depends, were the story 'X kisses Y' then it would be fine, were it 'ZOMG X is gay' without any proof it could be considered libel.

Regardless, it's how the story it presented that would change the legality, the picture itself is still completely legal.

shadesofgrey said:
No, a legal photo taken from a public place.

Are you suggesting that the guy sent to prison would have been totally fine, if only he had taken the video from a mile away from a public place?

Assuming the video were taken in public (or from a public place) then yes, of course.

Tefal · 21 May 2012 at 20:41

shadesofgrey said:
No, a legal photo taken from a public place.

Are you suggesting that the guy sent to prison would have been totally fine, if only he had taken the video from a mile away from a public place?

Ah so you're saying in a completely different scenario the man would not have been guilty of a crime he did not commit in this completely different scenario?

then yes you are right, just like if charles manson had decided against a life of crime and become a children's book author he would not be guilty of murder.