Toronto Photography Meetup Group

That would only be an issue if the person taking the photo was in a private space illegally. There are no restrictions of what you can do within your own space (short of what's criminal of course).

Legal and right or wrong are, unfortunately, usually separate matters.

Section 162 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which pertains to voyerism. Please note that the section makes reference to expectation of privacy and the possibility of nakedness, not the actuality of such.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... ml#docCont

That's exactly why this law wouldn't be enforceable in this type of scenario. No judge would ever grant an occupant of a dwelling/private structure, standing near an open window facing a public space, a "reasonable expectation of privacy". If a judge did, they would be setting a precedent that would basically outlaw taking photos in the direction of ANY private building with uncovered windows. The law linked above does nothing but solidify the fact that this is completely legal. Sure you can say "He'll definitely get charged"; there's tons of cops out there that would ignorantly detain and charge a photographer; but the fact is, the charges would never stick. At least not in this particular scenario.

Well first in this specific situation there is no nudity or sexual activity so this law does not apply. Secondly as Bart said, if your bedroom is open to dozens of other people's windows - you can't reasonably have an expectation of privacy with your windows open.

Thank you

Please reread my comment regarding the actual statements in this section of the Criminal Code, as I explicitly addressed the issue of there being no nudity or sexual activity.

You have an expectation of privacy in your own home. Incidentally taking pictures that include a window is one thing. Actively shooting through the windows of private residences is quite another, as it shows a certain level of intent. If someone is standing in front of their open window and completely nude, then that person can be charged with indecent exposure and the issue of privacy is moot. Not so if you are simply going about your regular business, in your own home.

So.. if you stand in front of an uncovered window naked, in public view. You can be charged with indecent exposure and the issue of privacy is moot. But if you stand in front of that same window with clothes on and pick your nose, you magically acquire the powers of "reasonable expectation of privacy"?

lol I give up on this arguement

It all comes down to how much you can afford to pay a lawyer

I have very reasonable rates

Actually it comes down to a single word: intent.

Intent = artistic expression

Charter of rights and freedoms prevails
So lets all go home and spy on our neighbours

I am doing it as we speak

showmeshowmeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhh

So, which section prevails? Is it:

"2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication"

... or is it...

"7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." ?

I would say that it's Section 7 on the basic principle that, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." (Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.)

Unless I break into your apartment and take your photo (or swing my camera at you) Section 7 isn't going to apply in this situation. Nothing within the right to life, liberty or security of person is being deprived. You cannot take one right and interpret it so broadly as to use it to deny another fundamental right. Ok, yes I'm sure you will come back about the courts doing this all of the time - balancing the rights of people etc. But in those cases someone is actually going to be injured or harmed by someone else exerting a right. And please do not come back with well those people were injured when someone took their photo. If you want to say they were injured you can - but the injury (which I do not agree happened) is so small as to not override a fundamental freedom.

Actually no, they do it all the time, and it doesn't necessarily involve physical harm. For example there's the recent Supreme Court judgment that states police are able to search your cell phone, unless you have taken some additional action (like setting a password) in order to secure it.

Privacy is one of the issues that the courts are asked to speak on quite regularly because it does, so often, involve balancing the rights of individuals against each other, or the rights of the individual and the responsibilities of The State.

Which one? The one that says they can't unless they have a special wiretap orders, much more difficult to get than a simple search warrant, since it was ruled to be an alternative form of communication.

edit - Are you talking about other countries other than Canada?

I'm talking about Canada. Sorry, Ontario Court of Appeal, not Canadian Supreme Court:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/s ... earch.html

Text of decision:

http://canlii.ca/t/fw61r

Sorry, mine was a direct reference to searching text messages on cell phones, not the rest of the data on the phone.

edit - Something tells me that when this goes up to the supreme court, given their ruling on text messages on an electronic device, there's a good chance the Ontario Courts rulings will get overturned.

Ok people - that court case involved a person was was just arrested for committing a crime - and the decision to extend the normal search of the person under arrest to include their cell phone. This will only apply in a similar situation. This is no different then having someone arrested and searching their person for illegal items Etc.

To be fair I did not read the decision just quickly read the intro with the facts of the case. Case law is very much attached to the specific facts of a case - do not jump to a conclusion about privacy based on a case dealing with specific situations that is only applicable to other situations that are the same.

if you walk by a window and see them, its alright, but using a telephoto lens from a block away is creepy.

Here's the Ontario Photographers Rights, dated 2011

I see a trend if you want to be famous:

http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/06/0 ... rd-camera/

Bam, bitches!!!

Not sure on that one. What if someone decided to stand in front of the window facing the street or school yard naked.........or cleaning your trusty rifle before hunting season. Lets see how much privacy there is?

Bam indeed. They have just solidified that the 'rights' of a single person trump the 'rights' of many other people, when the word 'art' is thrown around. Right is still right and wrong is wrong, and now wrong is codified in precedent.