The Offtopic Thread (Archive 1)

[love90]

Can't say

But something must be applicable

It may be 1st time warning case, if the repetition happen than it may be case of harassment or chasing or whatever

 

[mhsabir]

And also mind you, this was in Chennai 10 years ago, which would probably be like 20 years or so ago in other metros (the way the cultural aspects have changed over years).
I dont remember the entire conversation and anyway it was hearsay from cousin. The way the cousin described the guy it must have been polite and if the girl had replied get lost politely, he would have turned away. But the girl had rebuked him strongly.
Basically, had the girl said "aap apna kaam kijiye" maybe he would have kept quiet. But the girl probably used "Tu kaun hota hai mujhe yeh bolne wala", and that might have hurt his ego a bit.
The guy was at fault. But my point is that he was being stupid, but was booked under eve teasing & thats the only point I make.

 

[Sushubh]

It was great when we had some lawyers active on the forum. I mean cops are going to thrash the accused in this case without getting any warrant. I am more interested in the legality purely to find out if street photographers are protected in India.

 

[mhsabir]

Precisely, this guy was probably lucky that all he got was a couple of smacks at the back & was ruffled around & few hours in lockup along with a fine. And that was "all" he had to suffer.
Who knows what will happen in case he is caught by more ahem strict police.. (I am talking about the potential "photographer" as well, here)

 

[love90]

Yes the case must have been simply for harassment if she reported properly

 

[mhsabir]

Having said that, if the guy's story is true, then the girl was also guilty (not by law) of provoking him. For some people, its difficult to keep quiet when they are provoked/rebuked. And this weakness leads them to trouble.

 

[amish]

Public space... If there was a right of privacy in public space... Goodbye CCTV camera.

But CCTVs are bound by laws. And CCTV footage can not be used unless required by law. Plus CCTV footage are deleted permanently after X amount of days.
These points do not apply to random guy taking random photos.
PS: CCTV footage getting leaked is different issue though.

 

[Sushubh]

I doubt there are laws related to CCTV usage in this country.

 

[amish]

You are right. I searched but could not find any law.

But I found this statement somewhere:

The closest applicable law concerns electronic voyeurism and is contained in Section 66E of the IT Act which penalizes the "capturing, publishing and transmission" of images of the "private area"87 of any person without their consent, "under circumstances violating the privacy" of that person.

Does this mean that "taking photo is OK as long as person is clothed" i.e. no consent necessary?!!
Strange statement!

 

[Sushubh]

Voyeurism is a totally different thing. It relates to hidden cameras not CCTVs or public photography