Camel toe?

I think you just set a pun record there.

I can also see potential issues with any form of candid street
photography......

just have a look at some of Daniel's recent work... (smile). If some of
these laws are taken to the nth degree..... he would be arrested , even
though there is nothing lewd about them...... (now let's stay on topic
here people)

would the authorities label Alfred Eisenstadt a pervert and lock him up
in the current climate?

this is a very slippery slope.... legally speaking.

kosh

Or who wear spectacles....

Does it depend on what "activity" her "privates" are engaged in?

[Snip]

I didn't say that at all, and neither does the Act. It's important to
read the ENTIRE post **in the context of the specific question that
Kosh asked** which was, broadly speaking, "what the [bleep] was the
'using an optical device' charge about?"

As far as something being "legal" goes, the fact that something's not
prohibited under one law doesn't automatically mean that it's not
prohibited under another. But we'll come back to that.

There are a number of things to consider here, and I reiterate that we
don't have all of the details. (And since, AFAIK, not all of the
judgements, much less all of the transcripts, of proceedings in
magistrates' courts are put on line, we probably won't unless someone
wants to do some extensive and probably pointless footwork down at the
court itself.)

We don't KNOW, for example, that the "optical device" charge related
to Sleazy Takuya's activities at the Australian Open. We DO know that
he was charged with FOUR offences (one of which, "unlawful assault",
was dropped), and that the Australian Open ones MAY have related to
any or all of the other three which included the generic "Offensive
Behaviour". This is, frankly, a little further into the bowels of
Victorian jurisprudence than I feel like delving, but here's something
that's worth noting; the SECOND sleaze who was charged with taking
photos AT the Australian Open (Sleazy Takuya was the third) wasn't
charged with using an "optical device" but rather with... yup,
"offensive behaviour":

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/second-man-arrested-for-upskirt-pics/2007
/01/22/1169330834187.html

"The man, 35, from Werribee, was released last night and is expected
to be charged on summons with offensive behaviour."

The article further goes on to state that in relation to another
sleazebag:

"...police charged a man with stalking and causing a public nuisance
after he allegedly used cameras to look up hundreds of women' skirts
on trams. The man allegedly used one camera hidden in the toe of his
shoe and another disguised as a Walkman."

Again, note the absence of any charge relating to "using an optical
device". And the reason why is further down in the article, which
states that :

"Meanwhile, a discussion paper notes that such "up-skirting" incidents
may not be prohibited by Victoria's anti-surveillance and stalking
laws.

The paper, commissioned by the Standing Committee of
Attorneys-General, has cast doubt on whether anti-stalking provisions
in the Surveillance Devices Act and the Crimes Act apply to such
incidents. It notes that the act prohibits only the use of cameras to
record "private activities" without consent."

Now this is indeed consistent with the exclusions to the definition of
"Private activity" described earlier, but that's another issue.

What we DO know (since all of the reports are consistent on this
point) is that the original complaint against Sleazy Takuya wasn't in
relation to the Australian Open shots, but rather in regard to his
shooting of women in the shower of a backpackers' hostel. (One of them
caught him at it and ran out screaming.) The Open shots were only
found AFTER he was being investigated for that complaint.

Now for the shower shots, he's clearly in breach of the "use [of] an
optical surveillance device" prohibition in section 7, and could well
have been (and as far as I can see, WAS) charged for it. Had he been
charged under that section in relation to the Australian Open shots,
however, no doubt his lawyer would have engaged in all sorts of legal
hair- splitting over whether the women being photographed were engaged
in a "private activity". However it was unnecessary for the prosecutor
to go down that path anyway since he had the sleazy little sod bang to
rights over the shower photos.

The key point is that Kosh's concern about "using an optical device"
being prohibited *in and of itself* is, thankfully, unfounded. We can
still all head south of the border with our Canon EOS xxD's or Nikon
Dx0's (according to taste) with relative confidence in our rights to
shoot (as long as it's not in backpackers' showers, which is fair
enough), though the downside is that the b***ds shoot US with their
3km/h tolerance speed cameras if we do so.

As I qualified earlier, this is the situation "for now". 8^>

Yes, well, there's the other thing; last time I looked Perth wasn't in
Victoria. But you never know what those wily Mexicans might be up to
when we're not looking. 8^>

Seriously, however, this highlights the fact that these laws aren't
uniform between the states anyway. In NSW, for example, it matters not
a whit whether Sleazy Takuya could be done under the relevant
surveilance devices legislation, because he'd DEFINITELY have been
done under section 21G of the Summary Offences Act:
-----------------
21G Filming for indecent purposes

   (1) Any person who films, or attempts to film, another person to
provide sexual arousal or sexual gratification, whether for himself or
herself or for a third person, where the other person:
       (a) is in a state of undress, or is engaged in a private act,
in circumstances in which a reasonable person would reasonably expect
to be afforded privacy, and
       (b) does not consent to being filmed,

is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or
both.

   (2) For the purposes of this section:
       (a) a person "films another person" if the person causes one
or more images (whether still or moving) of another person to be
recorded or transmitted for the purpose of enabling himself or
herself, or a third person, to observe those images (whether while the
other person is being filmed or later), and

       (b) a person is "engaged in a private act" if the person is
engaged in using the toilet, showering or bathing, carrying on a
sexual act of a kind not ordinarily done in public or any other like
activity.
--------------------------

Again, though, it's not a law that would affect Ordinary Decent
Photographers, even if they should happen to come across a couple in
the Act Of The Boink in a public place.

Bugger. I'd stashed my glasses in a shipping container now buried in the
back paddock so 'the man' wouldn't take them away and I didn't see it.