Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Possible change to S.A. recording laws

Possible changes to visual recording in S.A.

I came across this article on ABC News online.

It suggests possible changes in laws regarding recording with out permission by mobile phones and video recording devices.

Although it segregates the area it is targeting the law will not be so definitive.

SA cracks down on 'peeping toms'

Using mobile phones to secretly film people will soon attract tough fines and prison sentences in SA.

Filming people secretly and without permission will be subject to big fines and prison sentences under new laws being introduced in the South Australian Parliament.

The Attorney-General, Michael Atkinson, wants to crack down on modern-day peeping toms using mobile phones to capture images of people without permission.

Mr Atkinson says he is concerned that there are people willing to misuse modern technology.

"We're also concerned with indecent filming, filming people going to the lavatory, filming people engaged in private acts, namely sexual acts, that occur only in private," he said.

"The Rann Government is keen to protect peoples' privacy from modern-day peeping toms, the raincoat brigade and some of the more extreme elements of the paparazzi.

"We want to give people privacy so that they don't find themselves being filmed without their knowing it."

Mr Atkinson says the offences could attract a two year jail sentence or a $10,000 fine.
Filming someone without permission is a different matter from recording a conversation.

Filming like this is done without consent. You cannot even take pictures of children at a school outing without permission from the children's parents. It is considered illegal and an invasion of privacy.

I believe the law on recording conversations to be different, in that the other person is a party to the conversation. The fed law states that you are allowed to record conversations where you believe you require the conversation for your lawful protection.

It's a good point, and worth watching as lobby groups have a habit of bleeding one law change into another.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Any man who takes photos of children or records anything about children - even his own - leaves himself open to a whole range of sinister accusations based on the hysteria of the people in gov departments and the community. Why would a man be interested in children (even his own)? Just think of what society would answer to THAT question in the first instance.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Jon Pearson said
Any man who takes photos of children or records anything about children - even his own - leaves himself open to a whole range of sinister accusations based on the hysteria of the people in gov departments and the community. Why would a man be interested in children (even his own)? Just think of what society would answer to THAT question in the first instance.
I'm completly at a loss for words on this - are you referring to inapropriate material here or just general happy snaps, family footage?  Why WOULDN'T a man want photos of video of his kids? Especially when they might be the only things he has between visits.

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
I thick that's Artemis and Jon's point Jadzia, "You cannot even take pictures of children at a school outing without permission from the children's parents. It is considered illegal and an invasion of privacy."

Taking any photos may be termed illegal but the defence is that the photo take was not intended for an illegal use. This does not stop others making false claim the purpose of the material recorded, and I am extending this to include written material, can be interoperated as being for a purpose other than the original purpose therefore can be claimed as alternative intent use.

An example was I sent my Ex a Joke sent me by my Mum, my Ex and the Judge claimed the Joke was saying I wanted my Ex dead. The real joke was the false claims of the Judge and my Ex thereby meant my mother made a claim I was unfaithful in my relationship with my Ex and my mother who sent me this joke also wanted me dead.

My point is, the original purpose and intent of recording by photo, audio or writing can falsely represented by the paranoid to be other than for a lawful purpose and the law applied to fit the paranoid thinking of the guilty.
I have to admit that I have fallen foul of the sort of abuse that males suffer due to the distorted view that any male with any means of recording anything is a peadophile.

I took my son to Jamberoo in early January, he and my wife went onto a ride, I stayed to look after our stuff and take some pictures of them at the end of the ride, only to be accosted by security guards telling me that according to the child protection act, that it is illegal to photograph or video children.

I found nothing in the act which says this, in fact all I found was the odd council trying to implement such laws.

Needless to say I will not be a customer of theirs ever again.

 
 
MikeT said
I have to admit that I have fallen foul of the sort of abuse that males suffer due to the distorted view that any male with any means of recording anything is a peadophile.

I took my son to Jamberoo in early January, he and my wife went onto a ride, I stayed to look after our stuff and take some pictures of them at the end of the ride, only to be accosted by security guards telling me that according to the child protection act, that it is illegal to photograph or video children.

I found nothing in the act which says this, in fact all I found was the odd council trying to implement such laws.

Needless to say I will not be a customer of theirs ever again.
MikeT

I think you probably hit a slightly raw nerve with them which was not aimed at you personally but because they are over sensitive to this issue.

I know they have had issues with people arriving with still and video cameras and no children and offering 'no explanation' why they are photographing children.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Perhaps they do have issues Agog, but is the correct way to deal with those issues to lie and say they are acting under legislation that doesn't exist? Asking that I wonder if in fact by saying as such that they themselves may have broken the law, sort of like in the way of impersonating a police officer (not that though).
Here is a real life scenario that some might like to comment on:

The parents of a mentally disabled child are  before the court.

No person in the matter (judge, barristers, solicitors) have had the opportunity to acquire a sense of the extent of the child's needs.

The child has the mind of a three year old and the strength of an Olympic wrestler. His care injuriously affects the life of a younger brother who is normal.

Is it appropriate that his needs be evident to those in a case?
Is it proper for one party to video him for the purpose of allowing him to put his needs on display?

Is oneparty entitled to video the child for the purposes of the court without the permission of the other party?

What is just and fair in this situation?

What is done for you, let it be done, what you must do, be sure you do it, as the wise person does today that what the fool will do in three days - Buddha
MikeT said
Perhaps they do have issues Agog, but is the correct way to deal with those issues to lie and say they are acting under legislation that doesn't exist? Asking that I wonder if in fact by saying as such that they themselves may have broken the law, sort of like in the way of impersonating a police officer (not that though).
MikeT

I think they are just being very over the top and perhaps are only parroting what they are told rather than understanding it. I think they have also altered their admission terms to reflect 'photography'.

I do have very good contacts within the Police departments in the area and without me being able to go into specifics about ongoing cases - at the moment the 'Gong' as an area is shall we say 'highly sensitive' to this issue.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
There is a cross over between being allowed to video and photograph in public and videoing and photographing children specific events.

Each year a permission slip is given out requesting that parents agree to allow their children to be photographed and having still shot or video possibly appear in public domains.

To photograph your child at home or video them is allowed because you are their guardian and you have permission but caution is always advised as to what you take vision of. It is fine for mum to take photo's of the child naked in the bath and be innocent but this could be used against dad, be it successfully or not. This is of course just an example of bias, if not OK for one it should be not OK for both.

If you are at an event that has children in and there is no way of knowing who has signed a waver and who hasn't then you need to protect the organization by refusing all photo's being taken.

One of the situations I do feel it will impact is where it comes to recording evidence of hostilities from X partners. If the act transgresses to include verbal recording this will then stop no only visual evidence but voice evidence. The other aspect is it will make any video recorded information inadmissible in court included verbally recorded with no vision.

This also will include mobile phones and more than likely tighten up how it is possible to accrue evidence for defense reasons.
There was a case outlined on Oprah where a 13 year old child was forced to take video footage of his father beating his mother. The mother was able to eventually escape the marriage, the father charged and jailed for around 20 years. Funnily enough it wasn't the video footage alone but a diary kept by the mothers boss of her attending work upset, bruised and battered that got conviction.

What would happen today if that footage was deemed illegal? How can we have a balance between protecting peoples privacy (including children) and using a tool that may very well be a victims only form of proof. This also leads us to areas under video surveillance in public places, how admissable can that evidence be and how much privacy is too much?

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
D4E.

Jamberoo then, did not have any indication that they had a ban and in fact many were, in the view of the same security guards, taking pictures and videoing stuff. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, that the guards were acting primarily upon the "Every male is a demon in some form" that society is instilling in itself.

So at least I get a "Very Over the Top". Agog :) but what makes it very over the top? What for example would be wrong, if I were to approach you in the street, say for carrying a folder under your arm, and say that it is illegal to carry a folder in public, because it is a terrorist threat?

If such legislation is to come about, what about all the surveillance cameras, is the assumption that these will not be used for such purposes?

Should advertising literature, for example what Jamberoo themselves use, perhaps be banned, because they are supplying photos of children on that? Should any owners of camera's, camcorders be compensated if laws forbid their use in public.
If you were singled out of the many people there then this is harassment, and yes they should provide detailed information to say that no-one is allowed to take images.

Things should be stated clearly in any of these event if this is their intention. I do not believe in the over protected nature of this memory keeping exercise especially when they can do little to control what appears on the net that is available for sicko's.

But my original response was that it could be for reasons of prevention on the part of the security guards due to lack of permission and you were discriminated against due to others being allowed to carry on after you were prevented.

I have heard of similar cases where all parents were told not to take photo's but this was more to do with the fact they were selling photo's after the event.
Images and video can be powerful tools - and completely false. The use of pictures in evidence could be limited - and should be - bacuase of the lack of context.

The worst examples of the thinking is:

1) People believing what they see in movies or TV.

2) Torturing people to produce video tape evidence.

By allowing images and videos to be used in court cases OPENS UP a CAN OF WORMS - where "the public' seek to obtain - but whatever means possible - information which can aid their own cause.

This is not a healthy model.

A model where evidence exists - because its there and the crime exists - without extreme and detailed scientific investigation - appeal to my sense of the justice process.

So back to the taking photos of children - I do it all the time. A few weeks ago I took photos of my son's cricket team at training so they could see their bowling action. I distributed the photos on CD - without a thought to Copyright law, Privacy law or a Child Protection ACT (commonwealth or local). Maybe I should hire a lawyer to go with me everywhere I go because THE REAL FEAR is not what I might do (after all I am a responsible adult who does not want over intrusive stupid government laws) - BUT WHAT STUPID LEGAL SYSTEMS and THEIR representatives and ZELOTS will do to me.

e.g. "I killed HIM because he as taking photos of children" or "I strip searched him because …"

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
No disagreement with yourself or Mike, Jon.

In a lot of cases I sill think it's allowing the path of least resistance to protect themselves for example if the law is only half known you will only enforce the half you know.

If the security guards child was there would he take photo's or would he stop everyone taking photo's.

If the law is introduced will parents still be able to take video of events be they male or female? Or will the charge apply to them?

I guess like most laws they are used to the convenience of the individual when discussing deterrent of taking film still or moving.

One of the things that did enlighten me was it introduced mobile phone footage as well sewing up that option, it would also prevent video evidence from other sources because if you took images with out permission of the X wielding a knife then forget it. As Jazdia has already suggested from Oprah.

But would this also make the voice recording inadmissible?
One of the most irritating things for me is the "new law" concept - suggestion there is a totally new concept being invented - Yet there are quite clearly many related laws - Privacy, Trespass and so on - all with their preambles , context and so on. What does not seem to happen is:

1) Integrated approach to law making

2) Revisiting old laws and updating them if required

3) Retiring old law

4) Investigating consequential changes

On 4) - Is mainly left up to the court to tell the legislators  - that they got it wrong.

So the political imperative is to introduce "new laws' - to claim points and a place in history and been seen to be reacting (withing your term in office) to something which is far more complicated in law than most people tend to appreciate.

The other concerning thing is the "hasty blunt instrument" - law is one large device - which by its nature is restrictive and punishing.

Education and the discussion of right and wrong is not a legal discussion - its for all of us. The weight of societies view can be a big thing. No-one would get any reward for doing these sorts of wrong things if none of his or her mates supported and accepted their behavior. I am dismayed at the demise of societal influences and the lack of concern by people of that.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets