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

[Threepwood]

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.

Off the top of my head? bearing in mind I dont really read trash papers? The recent Roony and his family on holiday in Las Vegas video?

 

[Glaucus]

Bikini clad Coleen in a public place video? That's what comes up on google and that's in a public place. Not hidden cameras in a private place.

 

[The Halk]

Off the top of my head? bearing in mind I dont really read trash papers? The recent Roony and his family on holiday in Las Vegas video?

Which was in public...

 

[One]

I imagine Americans will ignore this story. One the one hand an immigrant caused the suicide of a patriot, but on the other hand the guy was gay. Lol.

 

[Fuzz]

Hmmm, just deserves I guess. Tho' I wonder what the USA media is like, I mean how is this that different to the media invading privacy and reporting stuff without consent?

DESERTS

Just DESERTS. FFS

 

[Raikiri]

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.

 

[Threepwood]

Do you understand law?

Something legal is not illegal.

Okay. So, do you think that a £7000 fine, 30 days in prison and 300 hours of community service is a reasonable punishment for only filming someone in a private place without their knowlage?

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.



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

Yes, I understand this. It's hypocritical bullcrap, abusing the fine print of law to make something that's bad okay, because 'it's legal'.

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?

Again... So, do you think the punishment he recieved truely represented the only 'law' that he broke?

As it stands, the scenario is exactly the same, the only thing that is difference is the legality of where the camera was positioned!

Which was in public...

Yes, amazing how one loses all rights to ones privacy when in a public place... You know what I'm talking about

 

[Glaucus]

Yes I think it's reasonable. It is a massively bad thing to do.

Look at what he was convicted of, the sentence he could have recieved and what he actually did recieve.

Where the camera is positioned is massively important. Otherwise we would never be able to take pictures. But you can't take pictures of people behind closed doors in private places without permission. It's a simple concept. What you do in public is public, what you do in private places is private.

 

[Tefal]

Again... So, do you think the punishment he recieved truely represented the only 'law' that he broke?

As it stands, the scenario is exactly the same, the only thing that is different is the legality of where the camera was positioned!

so the only thing different is that a crime was committed...


Well as it's pretty ****ing difficult to charge someone with a crime that hasn't occurred then yeah i think it's a reasonable difference.

For a crime with a maximum sentence of 10 years, 30 days is pretty light going don't you think?


also

He also berated Ravi for attempting to cover-up the crime, including deleting text messages, tweets and trying to influence a witness.

that sounds a tad illegal don't it?

 

[crinkleshoes]

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

Ok... let me take a breath and re-phrase...

Whether the video was taken from inside the room or outside... it would still constitute an invasion of privacy. Please re-check the definition to confirm this.

A public display of affection... yes, that's free to all.

Someone sat a mile away with a big lens (even with curtains/windows wide open) would still be infringing the right to privacy... unless they'd been hanging out the window, broadcasting it to everybody!

What I have a problem with is that it's considered a jailable offense & can clearly see the mentally unstable idiot's suicidal actions have had a bearing on the sentencing for some poor guy who was just playing a silly prank.

Heck... if you look at the charges, he was convicted for editting a tweet... that's just so incredibly ridiculous.

 

[Glaucus]

Heo did it have a beating on the sentencing?

Have you read what he was convicted for? And what those sentences could have been?

 

[Tefal]

also you say only law that he broke?

Ravi was found guilty of 15 counts, including invasion of privacy,

says he broke 15 or a couple multiple times...

Middlesex County grand jury indicted Ravi on 15 counts of invasion of privacy, bias intimidation, tampering with evidence, witness tampering, and hindering apprehension or prosecution.

that's some pretty hefty law breaking to be fair.

I think that's what he got jail time for not the invasion of privacy.

 

[Raikiri]

Okay. So, do you think that a £7000 fine, 30 days in prison and 300 hours of community service is a reasonable punishment for only filming someone in a private place without their knowlage?

That wasn't the only thing he was charged with, but given the reasoning behind it and the circumstances in which it were done (sharing with others etc.) then yes, absolutely.

Yes, I understand this. It's hypocritical bullcrap, abusing the fine print of law to make something that's bad okay, because 'it's legal'.

The fine print? It's pretty simple really, are you in a public place? Yes, then go nuts, if not stop filming.

Again... So, do you think the punishment he recieved truely represented the only 'law' that he broke?

Check my first post, he was charged with 15 things which could have been 72.5 years, had he been given the maximum sentences. 30 days and a fine seems pretty fair, really.

Yes, amazing how one loses all rights to ones privacy when in a public place... You know what I'm talking about

You do understand the definition of the words 'public' and 'private', yes?

Ok... let me take a breath and re-phrase...

Whether the video was taken from inside the room or outside... it would still constitute an invasion of privacy. Please re-check the definition to confirm this.

A public display of affection... yes, that's free to all.

Someone sat a mile away with a big lens (even with curtains/windows wide open) would still be infringing the right to privacy... unless they'd been hanging out the window, broadcasting it to everybody!

No they wouldn't, if somewhere is visible from a public place then it isn't private, is it?

Were I to walk around starkers with the curtains open I'd have no right to be annoyed if someone saw me and took a picture!

 

[bitslice]

What I have a problem with is that it's considered a jailable offence & can clearly see the mentally unstable idiot's suicidal actions have had a bearing on the sentencing for some poor guy who was just playing a silly prank.

I wouldn't see this as a silly prank, it's disgusting. In fact given the problems gay people have in being accepted in society then I'd happily see this as a hate crime.

I don't want to share a planet with scum like this and all he got was 30 days?
Unbelievable

 

[Tefal]

What I have a problem with is that it's considered a jailable offense

i think courts take destruction of evidence and witness tampering quite seriously...

 

[Threepwood]

You don't understand. I'm obviously not putting myself across very well.

If he had taken the video in a legal way, then the rest of the things that he was charged with would never have happened, because he would never be in the dock in the first place.

And yes, I know the difference between a public and a private place. I just hold the opinion that ones privacy could be respected even if one is in a public place.

A stars knickers while getting out of a taxi is a good example. Since that is their 'private' place too even if the public can see it for a millisecond.

 

[Glaucus]

That still makes no sense.

It's like saying if he didn't break into a bank, he found be charged with robbery.

He did commit a crime and went on to commit other crimes.
Some of those crimes require first crime, others will not.

No, you get out a car is in no way shape or form a private place.

 

[Raikiri]

You don't understand. I'm obviously not putting myself across very well.

If he had taken the video in a legal way, then the rest of the things that he was charged with would never have happened, because he would never be in the dock in the first place.

Some would I suppose, the destruction of evidence etc. But the three counts of 'bias intimidation' could still stand, even if the actions that led to them were legal.

And yes, I know the difference between a public and a private place. I just hold the opinion that ones privacy could be respected even if one is in a public place.

To a point, but the law doesn't see it that way. Where would you draw the line? Can I take pictures of strangers, what if they wander into a shot?

Would that be just as illegal as invasion of privacy, despite being in public?

 

[crinkleshoes]

that sounds a tad illegal don't it?

I'd delete my tweets if someone was chasing me for something so ludicrous too...

I'd also ask the "witness" to STFU... that's all he did... you make it sound like he did something horrendous.

 

[Threepwood]

That still makes no sense.



No, you get out a car is in no way shape or form a private place.

So why do we call them our 'privates then....


Anyway, it does make sense, what I'm getting at is that a bad deed is still a bad deed even if it's legally okay.