NOV 13 — Does the law provide adequate protection of privacy and against piracy as mobile phones and other camera-equipped devices make it easier to record images surreptitiously? There is no ambiguity about up-skirt or down-blouse snapshots and voyeuristic videography being offensive to women. Or that videoing a movie from a back-row seat and recording a concert for DVD or YouTube sharing are often copyright violations. How much can legislation be realistically refined to keep up with gadgetry?
The Penal Code in Singapore provides for up to a year's imprisonment or a fine, or both, for anyone convicted of insulting a woman's modesty. Convictions under the Copyright Act carry a jail term of up to five years or a maximum S$100,000 (RM240,000) fine or both. Neither, however, singles out electronic gadgets as such when it comes to considering seriousness of an offence or severity of punishment. According to latest police data, there were 50 modesty cases in 2006, up from 28 in 2004. The trend bears watching. The courts usually impose a month's jail on up-skirt offenders, and longer sentences in cases involving multiple images or victims, or for recording with a hidden camera in a bathroom or other private spaces. Are these enough of a deterrence?
The difficulty in detecting such means to demean, nevertheless, would argue for additional deterrence. But it needs to be practical to have an effect. Similarly, the law can go further in protecting copyrights by providing specifically for more severe sanctions against clandestine recording. Some cinema operators are having to use night-vision goggles to spot offenders. Other technological counter-measures, such as cellphone cameras that beep when activated (like many found in South Korea), might also prove effective. Fitness centres and other public places with private spaces (including clothing stores with changing rooms) have had to ban or look out for such devices. Where do they draw the line between customer convenience and privacy?
More than just gadget-induced annoyances, wilful intrusions pose difficulties for privacy protection and commerce. Britain and other European countries have laws incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights restricting publication of images that violate privacy. In the United States, the 2004 Video Voyeurism Prevention Act prohibits intentional capture of certain parts of an individual's anatomy without consent when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Singapore may have to consider new provisions and tighten current laws against privacy intrusion and copyright infringement if it is to deter less and less difficult and more and more outrageous violations. — The Straits Times
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
