Feet and shoes on Bulkhead?

[legroom]

Actually I think you'll find naked bodies a whole lot harder to identify than the clothed bodies....

Off topic

Clothing is dime a dozen.

Body shapes, scars, pattern of pathology give far more clues to forensics than a run of the mill pair of socks unless the clinical picture is zoomed in close.

Respectfully I disagree.

 

[Buzzard]

Keith Urban had his feet on the bulkhead during flight QF974 BNE - TSV yesterday (1F)

 

[wingspan]

Esp when that someone is de-identified which shows the OP's respect for privacy.

It's not really de-identified. The OP told us the route, date, and rough timings, and we know it was a QF flight, and we know the seat and the socks of the person in the photo, along with some demographic information (woman, 60s). That's quite a lot of information. This is certainly not respect for privacy.

If you are in a public space there's no requirement for consent.

I don't think anyone is debating that. There is no legal requirement for consent to take a photo of anything in public with of course certain exceptions that most people are aware of. But if we only care about 'right' and 'wrong' in the eyes of the law then this entire thread would be pointless. It wouldn't even exist. We care about morals. If someone is taking a photo of someone without their knowledge or consent in a public place just so they can complain about it and share it on social media, then that's quite weird. This is why I've never said drivatruk is right or wrong - because who is to say if anyone is right or wrong in any issue really - just that the actions drivatruk did were creepy - not drivatruk​ themselves.

 

[legroom]

It's not really de-identified. The OP told us the route, date, and rough timings, and we know it was a QF flight, and we know the seat and the socks of the person in the photo, along with some demographic information (woman, 60s). That's quite a lot of information. This is certainly not respect for privacy.....

You are right.

However, considering a few points:

1) Morning means 0600 -1159 am

2) There are more than one flight in that period of time

3) Unless you have insider's access or are in law enforcement, an ordinary member of the public can never track down anyone in 1B to ask if they were wearing those socks and/or committing that 'misdemeanor' (now, that's real protection of privacy).

Had it been me, I'd have omitted the seat number and the time factor.

 

[wingspan]

You are right.

However, considering a few points:

1) Morning means 0600 -1159 am

2) There are more than one flight in that period of time

3) Unless you have insider's access or are in law enforcement, an ordinary member of the public can never track down anyone in 1B to ask if they were wearing those socks and/or committing that 'misdemeanor' (now, that's real protection of privacy).

Had it been me, I'd have omitted the seat number and the time factor.

Either way, I'm looking forward to bringing it up in my eithics lecture this week. Will be a good discussion point.

 

[marki]

It's not really de-identified. The OP told us the route, date, and rough snip.......someone without their knowledge or consent in a public place just so they can complain about it and share it on social media, then that's quite weird. This is why I've never said drivatruk is right or wrong - because who is to say if anyone is right or wrong in any issue really - just that the actions drivatruk did were creepy - not drivatruk​ themselves.

What about google glass you can video stream or photos. The glasses can recognise your face giving status to those feet on the bulk head. Eyes roll!


Sent from my iPhone using AustFreqFly

 

[cove]

Bare feet resting on the TV screen on SQ J was an eye opener for me last week. I definitely noticed that.

 

[Aussie_flyer]

Either way, I'm looking forward to bringing it up in my eithics lecture this week. Will be a good discussion point.

yes it's been an absolute delight here

 

[burmans]

3) Unless you have insider's access or are in law enforcement, an ordinary member of the public can never track down anyone in 1B to ask if they were wearing those socks and/or committing that 'misdemeanor' (now, that's real protection of privacy).

Personally if you are going down the Privacy Act path I think this is not such a great argument. The Privacy Act defines personal information as:

…information or an opinion, whether true or not, and whether recorded in a material form or not, about an identified individual, or an individual who is reasonably identifiable.
​

It does not specify by who that information can be identified, i.e. if it could be identified by Qantas or a law enforcement officer then it meets that criteria (noting that law enforcement officers do have some exceptions under the law - i.e. they are able to use such information if they believe it relates to a crime having been perpetrated). The argument about the socks being common is a bit suss, drivatruk thought they were remarkable enough to well remark on them!

The biggest argument about the Privacy Act not applying here is the fact that the APP's apply to organisations and government agencies, NOT individuals. Its lucky this is the case because the next test is that they have to have a legitimate reason for disclosure of this information in going about their business, this particular use would almost certainly fail that test!

 

[artemis]

If you are in a public space there's no requirement for consent.

really? could you tell us what you've based that on?

I'd think you need to consent (at least morally) to post the photo on a public forum like this one...

Like I said earlier - I think there's an expectation of some privacy when travelling on aircraft...

 

[get me outta here]

Someone said that this thread could go on for 100 posts discussing this topic, but hey we may well reach 200. Maybe a dissertation will be done on AFF posts and comments one day.

 

[legroom]

really? could you tell us what you've based that on?

I'd think you need to consent (at least morally) to post the photo on a public forum like this one...

Like I said earlier - I think there's an expectation of some privacy when travelling on aircraft...

First up, I'm not a lawyer.

Secondly, I tried to approach this subject with an open mind.

Here is what I found:

1) ALRC (Australian Law Reform Commission - Report #108):

69.128 The ALRC does not recommend a blanket ban on the taking of images without consent. This is not seen as a practical or desirable option. Decisions regarding imposing conditions of entry or participation that include a ban on taking images should be left to the bodies owning premises or organising events.

69.132 The ALRC’s considerations have focused on privacy regulation that may assist with concerns in this area. While acknowledging that individuals taking and publishing images for personal use are not covered under the Privacy Act, the ALRC does not consider it appropriate to broaden the take-down notice scheme to address privacy issues arising from the online publication of personal information.

69.133 The statutory cause of action will provide protection where a person (including a child or young person) has a reasonable expectation of privacy and the act or conduct is sufficiently serious to cause substantial offence to an ordinary person.

The ALRC then went on to list certain circumstances where criminal actions may have been committed:

69.119 There are a number of existing criminal laws that address the taking and use of unauthorised images for offensive purposes. Some of these include:

use of surveillance devices to record a ‘private activity’ without consent;[147]

filming for indecent purposes;[148]

making an image of a child engaged in a private act for prurient purposes;[149]

making indecent visual images of a child under the age of 16;[150]

committing indecent or offensive acts in a public place;[151]

child coughography offences;[152]

and

using a telecommunications network or carriage service to facilitate certain offences.[153]

2) NZ Privacy Commisioner (address to Photo Library of NZ, 1997)

"... The Act prevents the collection of information by unlawful means, unfair means and unreasonably intrusive means .... "

a) There is no law prohibiting taking of photos on planes (as compared to change rooms etc...) AFAIK

b) Taking a photo in public (I'd argue plane is a public space) is not intrusive (e.g. through BR window) IMO

3) Elspeth Knewstubb - Uni of Otago, Dunedin Law Faculty, Honours Thesis 2007

"... Photographs taken in public will not receive much protection through the Privacy Act 1993 (NZ) ... " [p. 10]

".... In general, photographs taken in public will not attract reasonable expectations of privacy, as they do not often deal with sensitive, or even particularly embarrassing material...." [p. 38]

Further, "... It is likely that identification of the plaintiff from the facts published will be necessary to attract liability..." [p. 41]

In conclusion, the author concluded "... there will be very few photographs taken in public places where the tort (of invasion of privacy) will apply..... (exceptions) include up skirt photography... (or) ... when a skirt flies up in a gust of wind...." [p. 42]

4) ABC vs Lenah Game Meats [2001] HCA 63

[42] Gleeson CJ ".... Certain kinds of information about a person, such as information relating to health, personal relationships, or finances, may be easy to identify as private; as may certain kinds of activity, which a reasonable person, applying contemporary standards of morals and behaviour, would understand to be meant to be unobserved. The requirement that disclosure or observation of information or conduct would be highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities is in many circumstances a useful practical test of what is private.... "

I'd argue here that a 'reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities' would not regard the photo of a pair of socks in a public space as an invasion of privacy.

******

So, I remain to be convinced that your opinion has a basis in law.

As to morals, well - I'd go to church for that.

Regards,

 

[wingspan]

".... Certain kinds of information about a person, such as information relating to health, personal relationships, or finances, may be easy to identify as private; as may certain kinds of activity, which a reasonable person, applying contemporary standards of morals and behaviour, would understand to be meant to be unobserved. The requirement that disclosure or observation of information or conduct would be highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities is in many circumstances a useful practical test of what is private.... "

I'd argue here that a 'reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities' would not regard the photo of a pair of socks in a public space as an invasion of privacy.

I agree with most of your post - I definitely think that you can take a photo of almost anything in public (barring some obvious exceptions).

But I'd suggest that a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities (even though they might not regard the photo of a pair of socks in a public space as an invasion of privacy) would probably regard the kind of discussion that's gone on about them on this thread to be an invasion of privacy. Certainly if I were the woman in 1B and that was my photo, I'd feel my privacy had been invaded. Mind you - not by the taking of the photo. Rather, by the discussion and the reason behind the taking of the photo (to complain on a forum).

Again, people certainly can do this, but that doesn't mean that it's appropriate behaviour. And I guess that's what this whole post has been about anyway.

 

[boomy]

My conclusion from this thread is that each has it's own opinions and standards. I guess as long as it's legal there is nothing to be done about it. People will keep putting their feet up and others will keep taking photos and mock them. Life is too short, time to move on.

 

[bryanjones]

I admire this guys flexibility but wonder if there isn't a better forum to showcase it.... Recent flight from xx_ to YYY (redacted) on BA so as to not narrow down the possible customers to less than 10000 other bald men who fly it

 

[Aussie_flyer]

I admire this guys flexibility but wonder if there isn't a better forum to showcase it.... Recent flight from xx_ to YYY (redacted) on BA so as to not narrow down the possible customers to less than 10000 other bald men who fly it

That's delightful

 

[JohnK]

I admire this guys flexibility but wonder if there isn't a better forum to showcase it.... Recent flight from xx_ to YYY (redacted) on BA so as to not narrow down the possible customers to less than 10000 other bald men who fly it

Oozes class!

 

[Foreigner]

On Qantas Q300:

 

[eminere]

On Qantas Q300:

That is fantastic.

 

[legroom]

On Qantas Q300:

View attachment 32003

Someone at Mascot read this thread ???