X-rated detail caught by mobile phone camera sparks privacy review

[ian.ict]

Summary

The NSW (Australia) government will launch a review after a woman was indecently photographed by seat belt/cell phone use camera.

 

 

Quotes

Quote

Cinzia Lee says she felt “shock and distress” when a fine for using her phone behind the wheel arrived with a photograph, 2GB reports.

“You could see up my skirt, between my legs,” she told Ben Fordham Live. “You could see my underwear.”

 

My thoughts

Cell phone use while driving is too common and puts everyone in a dangerous situation.  Officials have to come up with ways to enforce cell phone bans.

Is this camera technology too intrusive to privacy?

I certainly would be concerned if my ding-dong was being photographed without my knowledge or consent.  To strike a balance between road safety for everyone and person privacy is a challenge and this implementation seems to be too intrusive in my opinion.

Are there other technologies to detect cell phone use while driving that would not have these same privacy concerns?

Most likely yes, this appears to be some kind IR camera that will work the same day or night.  I can understand why they implemented this solution but a standard wavelength camera under a streetlight would likely have a similar outcome without the same privacy concerns.

 

Sources

https://nz.news.yahoo.com/x-rated-detail-caught-mobile-phone-camera-sparks-privacy-review-052511601.html

[Holmes108]

Ooh, this is tricky. 

 

To play devil's advocate, you're in your car, but you're still in public. I'm pretty sure it's probably illegal to drive with no pants on, for example (I understand that's not what happened here). In this case, it was "just" underwear. Not to minimize it too much, but is that the end of the world?

 

There's a scale of indecency that these cameras could potentially catch (with an inadvertent up-skirt arguably on the lower end), but the further up the scale we go, so does your responsibility of how you came to be in that position (if we're talking about catching full nudity, or sexual acts, etc...)

 

I'm not sure exactly how hi res satellites go these days, but you're potentially being viewed by them too. It's a different world to be sure.

[leadeater]

39 minutes ago, ian.ict said:

Most likely yes, this appears to be some kind IR camera that will work the same day or night.  I can understand why they implemented this solution but a standard wavelength camera under a streetlight would likely have a similar outcome without the same privacy concerns.

No it wouldn't. I have a lot of experience dealing with security camera systems and you must use IR at night to achieve any kind of detail such as this reliably. Night time lighting usage with cameras without IR capability has to be placed very carefully and is used in quite a different way and purpose than this. Non-IR cameras are blinded extremely easily by light, something vehicles are emitting all over the place at night. All you'd get is either a black image or severe blinding with maybe at best a grainy image that wouldn't be suitable for evidence for a fine.

 

The better solution would be placing cameras and uses lenses such that this type of angle is not used but gives sufficient visibility in to the vehicle to ascertain usage of devices like phones. Also immediate in-line image processing that blocks out the passenger side for good measure as that has nothing to do with the driver and any road rules, it's not difficult to do that now days. Only relevant data should be stored which would be the image of the driver.

[porina]

Can someone clarify, given the angle the camera was pointing at, the view claimed shouldn't be normally possible. Is this a case of inadvertent see through effect that IR photography can have? Some materials that are opaque to visible light are transparent to IR light, which includes some clothing material. Is that what happened here? The source article doesn't directly reference this.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, porina said:

Can someone clarify, given the angle the camera was pointing at, the view claimed shouldn't be normally possible. Is this a case of inadvertent see through effect that IR photography can have?

Seat is probably decently far back from dash along with a rather short skirt that becomes a little more revealing when seated in a car seat. Car seats have you leaning back a bit with legs/knees raised a bit so... be aware of what people can see standing on overpasses.

[wanderingfool2]

39 minutes ago, ian.ict said:

Most likely yes, this appears to be some kind IR camera that will work the same day or night.

The way it was worded though implies you could see up and not through though...but either way yea it's probably so it can register in day or night since it gives you the a lot more clearer of an image when you have things like headlights to deal with.

 

I actually don't have too much concern regarding this, public settings in a public environment at an angle that is required to see the phone usage and I guess truckers would also be able to get a very similar view.

 

 

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

The better solution would be placing cameras and uses lenses such that this type of angle is not used but gives sufficient visibility in to the vehicle to ascertain usage of devices like phones. Also immediate in-line image processing that blocks out the passenger side for good measure as that has nothing to do with the driver and any road rules, it's not difficult to do that now days. Only relevant data should be stored which would be the image of the driver.

I'm not sure an angle would be possible to detect phone usage on camera as in this case she had it in her lap.  You could maybe have a more perpendicular shot, but then you switch from up skirt shots down a different type of shot (and have to have a faster shutter since the relative motion would be higher which probably means better IR cameras needed).  I agree with the in-line image to block out the passenger (while maintaining the original in case it goes to court or something similar and originals are needed, but only have limited employee access to it for an event like that)

 

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Seat is probably decently far back from dash along with a rather short skirt that becomes a little more revealing when seated in a car seat. Car seats have you leaning back a bit with legs/knees raised a bit so... be aware of what people can see standing on overpasses.

Also when using a phone between your legs one has a tendency to spread ones legs more, which exasperates what you mentioned even more.

[Sauron]

I'm confused, if she's not the one driving why did she get a ticket?

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I'm not sure an angle would be possible to detect phone usage on camera as in this case she had it in her lap.  You could maybe have a more perpendicular shot, but then you switch from up skirt shots down a different type of shot (and have to have a faster shutter since the relative motion would be higher which probably means better IR cameras needed).

I'm not sure either but this one seems a little high to me but you have a very good point about trucks. That would make a big difference in required field of view etc.

[ian.ict]

Just now, Sauron said:

I'm confused, if she's not the one driving why did she get a ticket?

The source article is referencing 2 similar cases.  The quoted person and photo are different events.  The photo is a seat belt violation that would apply to the passenger.  The quote is from a driver with a cell phone violation.

[Holmes108]

3 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I'm confused, if she's not the one driving why did she get a ticket?

 

Yes, I noticed the details seemed to not match the picture as well, and was curious.

 

Edit: Ah, clarified above. Guess I should read the article.

[leadeater]

14 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I'm confused, if she's not the one driving why did she get a ticket?

I believe this is the actual photo and someone is playing fast and loose.

 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/upskirt-photo-prompts-nsw-traffic-camera-review/IWZAVDU3A5AIHJEJNWZ572KNLQ/

 

From a source I trust more than Yahoo.

[wanderingfool2]

7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I'm not sure either but this one seems a little high to me but you have a very good point about trucks. That would make a big difference in required field of view etc.

I have a family member who is a trucker and the stuff they say they have seen people do (because people think other people won't notice).

 

The way I do look at it though, you could do a more shallow type of angle, but then the dash will start hiding it...I can't personally think of an angle where you could still detect it without someone saying "I have my hands on the bottom of the wheel" or one that is so steep that it creates the problem of looking down people's shirts.

 

Best I can say is make sure to wear your underwear

 

8 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I'm confused, if she's not the one driving why did she get a ticket?

The camera they showed was from the part 2 of the article where they had a passenger who had their upskirt photographed (with the driver using the phone)

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The way I do look at it though, you could do a more shallow type of angle, but then the dash will start hiding it...I can't personally think of an angle where you could still detect it without someone saying "I have my hands on the bottom of the wheel" or one that is so steep that it creates the problem of looking down people's shirts.

Hard to really know without doing a study on it trying different angles etc, which would be quite the "interesting" thing to have to explain what and why you are doing it for heh. Likelihood is that has already been done and there is a standardized height, position, angle, focal point etc range for these cameras just like there is for speed cameras.

[suicidalfranco]

fine her for using a phone while driving and for public indecency.

as simple as that.

[mr moose]

Maybe I don't have a good enough imagination, but all I see is grey and a steering wheel.  This looks to me like someone is just trying to get out of their fine. 

[jagdtigger]

Id say this falls pretty much within the necessary evil category, way too many idiots using their phone while driving  in a dangerous way. TBH after the 2nd time they get caught they should be barred from driving anything for the rest of their life.

[SolarNova]

An IR blocking window tint solves this issue.

 

IR blocking tinting has official uses, just like on houses, reducing harmful IR effects from the sun. Bonus ..it stop this sh*t also.

 

Ofc it doesnt obstruct visible light so if the camera in question has dual lenses for both IR images and visible light, it wont help. But still.

[PocketNerd]

This is 100% blaiming the victim but... Don't want cameras looking up ya skirt? Don't text and drive!

[HenrySalayne]

Does this system only takes a picture if it registers an offence or does it simply take a picture of every passing car and somebody has to manually check these images for offences? If it is the latter, I fully understand the problem. If it's an automatic system, showing your private parts should not prevent you from being fined.

[Uttamattamakin]

I have a radical solution for this.  The whole idea of cell phone use while driving being inherently bad should be done away with.  At least the idea that it is uniquely dangerous compared to other things.   Instead just fine or imprison people who use a phone while driving that results in an accident or other violation.  Like flying a plane which involves a degree of human simultaneous multi tasking some people can do it others cannot. 

The cost of this freedom and lack of surveillance would be an increase in accidents.  

Other similar dangers.  Eating a big double stuffed sub or big double cheese burger while driving can be really distracting.   No one gets a ticket for it.   So do away with the cameras and accept that accidents happen. 

[Dracarris]

On 3/17/2023 at 4:50 PM, Holmes108 said:

I'm pretty sure it's probably illegal to drive with no pants on

Nope, at least in some countries. Your car is a private space and you can drive naked if you want to, but then ofc the moment you step out of the car it becomes problematic.

14 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

and for public indecency

I really hope you're joking.

[leadeater]

8 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

I have a radical solution for this.  The whole idea of cell phone use while driving being inherently bad should be done away with.  At least the idea that it is uniquely dangerous compared to other things.   Instead just fine or imprison people who use a phone while driving that results in an accident or other violation.  Like flying a plane which involves a degree of human simultaneous multi tasking some people can do it others cannot. 

The cost of this freedom and lack of surveillance would be an increase in accidents.  

Other similar dangers.  Eating a big double stuffed sub or big double cheese burger while driving can be really distracting.   No one gets a ticket for it.   So do away with the cameras and accept that accidents happen. 

Ah so your last example is also illegal in many places. The law being broken isn't "using a phone" it's this http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104/s297.html. And yes people in AUS/NSW and my country have been ticketed and fined for it.

 

This is a supremely bad take. If you don't put any measures of prevention in then it becomes meaningless. If an accident is caused you similarly don't need such a law around driver distractions either since that would get covered by other ones for Negligence or Reckless which are their own set of offences.

 

I'm legitimately afraid to ask you about alcohol and drugs, because following your (bad) reasoning it should not be illegal to drive while under the influence as well, just only if you crash. Lets just all ignore how much more dangerous it is and how it increases accident rates. But lets not make it illegal because "you" want to be an idiot.

 

Let me guess you use your phone while driving? You don't think it's that much of a big deal and you think you can manage just fine. Get off the road I don't want you anywhere near me and I find that behavior abhorrent and I think you shouldn't ever be allowed back on the road. I will use my voting powers to advocate for exactly this and I'm glad in my country it's also illegal in the same way, I and many others want these laws and that is my freedom of choice, to force you off the road or in to fines and removal of license so you aren't a danger to me, my life and my freedom.

 

Flying a plane isn't anything like driving a car on the road, geez.

 

Radical line of reasoning, you won't drop dead because you can't use your phone for a while. If you need to use it for the purposes of driving like navigation there are legal ways to use it, in a proper mount not in your hands and not fiddling with it unless you pull off the road.

[TetraSky]

On 3/17/2023 at 12:16 PM, ian.ict said:

The source article is referencing 2 similar cases.  The quoted person and photo are different events.  The photo is a seat belt violation that would apply to the passenger.  The quote is from a driver with a cell phone violation.

Seatbelt violations apply to both the passenger not wearing the seatbelt and the driver for failing to enforce the seatbelt rule in their car. Or at least, that's how it works in Canada.
edit : for passengers under 16. Guess it doesn't apply here.

 

18 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Nope, at least in some countries. Your car is a private space and you can drive naked if you want to, but then ofc the moment you step out of the car it becomes problematic.

I really hope you're joking.

If you can see through a window, whatever you see from a public space, is considered public and thus no expectation of privacy.
That's why someone can look through your window from the sidewalk when your blinds are wide open while you're changing your clothes in your home, and you might get charged with public indecency for doing so while nothing to do.

While there are no laws about driving naked, and technically correct to say you can drive naked as long as you don't leave the vehicle... it would still be considered an offense to drive naked if you are stopped by cops or someone decides to report you after being offended by that sight.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-174.html

Might be different in the US.

Quote

• (b) is nude and exposed to public view while on private property, whether or not the property is his own,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

 

[Erioch]

If I'm ever back in Australia, I'm going commando in a kilt.  Whomever has to analyze the photos will need therapy.

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, TetraSky said:

Seatbelt violations apply to both the passenger not wearing the seatbelt and the driver for failing to enforce the seatbelt rule in their car. Or at least, that's how it works in Canada.

In Aus, the driver is responsible for all underage people in the car,  people over 18 are their own responsibility.