[Locke]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

So, I'm not sure if anyone has noted this yet, but I'm pretty sure this isn't against the law. At least, it's not contra the Criminal Code provision on voyeurism he was charged with, on its face. I didn't know that provision existed, so I haven't read the cases, but it's wholly prefaced on the person being voyeur...ed? being in a context where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Say, your apartment or a bathroom stall. Not the sidewalk. It's aimed at spying on people when they're in private, basically.

The whole thing might get granier when you start talking about looking up women's skirts, but I don't think it's broad enough to cover walking behind a girl on the street and filming her butt. That's just not the behaviour it was drafted to cover.

Incidentally, if it were broad enough, it'd have some interesting results, because that code provision does't distinguish between filming and mere observation. In other words, if he were convicted, it would suggest that you could be charged just for leering at girls in public. Which also seems like an unintended consequence... I suspect that some people would be in favour of such a law, even so.

Does it change when hes distributing them on twitter though?

If the guy just kept the photos for his own personal, 'private use' we likely would never know about it, but once he starts openly distributing photos of people without their permission and of a sexual nature that has to break some laws doesnt it?