Public Dashcam Footage and Privacy Laws

aspirepranesh on 05/11/2020 - 16:41
Last edited 05/11/2020 - 18:48 by 1 other user

This was originally posted on Dashcam owners Australia whom I have been following for a while and has since been picked up multiple News outlets.

Apparently, the genius here has now threatened to sue DOA via a Law firm. You can find this on their facebook page

I am really curious to know what OZB community thinks about this kind of behaviour, which should fall in line with most of the FB comments as spackbace mentioned here and also, the privacy laws around dashcam footage in public places?

My reason for posting it here, to make idiots like these outed so that they realize they cannot threaten people and get away with it.

Automotive

Comments

  • ozhunter on 05/11/2020 - 16:44
    +10

    I am really curious to know what OZB community thinks about this kind of behaviour?

    Have a guess…

    • aspirepranesh on 05/11/2020 - 16:46
      +3

      hahaha…. A genius by the name (Mod: No personal info please) on youtube went on a rant on the original youtube clip by DOA before they took it down. I think the driver was dumb enough to out himself on youtube.

      Cannot wait to see if he is an OzB member :)

      • spackbace on 05/11/2020 - 16:51
        +2

        A genius by the name of

        My reason for posting it here, to make idiots like these famous

        And just open OzBargain up to the same C&D order that DOA received? Why wouldn't you just have a healthy discussion about it?

        • aspirepranesh on 05/11/2020 - 16:53
          +2

          Not exactly. If multiple news media outlets are reporting it, I personally don't see it as a problem.

          But one thing you are right about is the name (again, I am going based off the youtube comments I was following ever since the video was uploaded) and I have requested the mods to hide the comment, which they have done.

          @Mods: Appreciate it.

          • Scrooge McDuck on 06/11/2020 - 06:03
            +19

            @aspirepranesh: The letter in question is either bogus or whoever wrote it is incompetent. It reads like fake legalese containing poor phrasing, word choices and typos, eg Police office vs Police Station and compliant vs complainant or complaint (either works since the word choice is so poor anyway). It refers to a South Australian act even though the original matter occurred in New South Wales and did not involve DOA. Surveillance devices legislation generally does not apply to public spaces/conversations. It was disappointing to see DOA pander to and enable bullying by unpublishing the video. Thankfully it has been mirrored elsewhere and is getting the exposure it deserves.

            The perpetrator is a lowlife numpty who can't control his anger. He certainly caused the apprehension of violence in the victim which constitutes Common Assault in NSW.

            Oh and he's a rubbish driver too! He doesn't seem to know which way to turn the wheel to steer a car whilst reversing.

            • [Deactivated] on 06/11/2020 - 09:17
              +5

              @Scrooge McDuck:

              The letter in question is either bogus or whoever wrote it is incompetent.

              Just because it is not complainant with our vocabulary?

              • Musing Outloud on 07/11/2020 - 21:12
                +3

                @[Deactivated]: First is I am not legally qualified, but have studied a little law. So the following is the outcome of some quick research, which will probably be sufficient for the Ozbargain debate on this topic.

                This specific incident relates to the freedom to take photographs and videos in public spaces. Fundamentally, there is no right to privacy when you are in public in Australia. I won't comment on the alleged legality or criminality of the acts videoed, but will suggest that a court may decide that there is a public interest aspect to this particular case that might override any privacy concerns of the complainant.

                The exception to a right to privacy being if this video/photography was taken for commercial purposes, but here the intent of the dash cam owner was protection of property and person, not commercial use. The tricky bit here is when you take video on private property the legalities shift and certain permissions may be required from that property owner and/or users of that property and/or copyright owners of items on that property.

                A neat summary of the law for photographers/mobile phone users is below:

                https://www.artslaw.com.au/information-sheet/street-photogra… and
                https://www.artslaw.com.au/information-sheet/filmmaking-with…

                The crux here is "an Australian judge stated “a person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed". If you think the dash cam owner needed to provide permission for publication in this case, you'd be wrong. "If you are using your shots for a commercial purpose, such as for an advertising campaign, you should obtain a model release form". That does not apply here. Dash cam recordings are typically used for personal purposes to legally protect you and your property and does not fall into commercial use. It could be tenuously argued that DOA make some small amount of money from uploading this to Youtube, but they were not the videographer. Besides DOA make money from selling dash cams.

                Also a dash cam is not a hidden camera. It is visible and can be pointed out. And I doubt the intent of privacy laws are to prevent open and visible dash cam use in the manner intended to protect self and property.

                So this leaves the owner of the private car park as the only clear entity from which permission might be needed. However as the intent here is protection and not commercial, it is unlikely that there is any need to seek permission.

                If I was the car park owner (in this case attached to a shopping mall) I would not want customers like the complainant on my property as that would potentially reduce custom to the businesses on my property. On that basis I would also want to know their details to pass onto my solicitors to identify them and ban them from my property along with considering whether to shaming the complainant in a manner making it clear to my customers that I do not condone this behaviour at my business. My intent in publishing is again protection (of my business) and sending a public message that this behaviour is not tolerated from the complainant or other potential complainants, and indicate to my customers that I will take action to ensure they feel safe on my premises. But I can only speak for myself.

                If I was the dash cam owner I would also have passed in the first instance the footage to the police. And only if the Police declined to take prosecution action would I make the footage public, on tv, in the media and on the internet. Again I speak for myself.

                So overall, it would seem the legal letter has very little legalities on which to stand on and the inference can be taken that it is only to shutdown public embarrassment of the complainant. Again, if it were me, I would just remove identifying info by blurring the number plates and his face, then putting the video back up immediately.

      • AustriaBargain on 05/11/2020 - 19:44
        +1

        YouTube doesn't count. You can find anything on YouTube.

  • spackbace on 05/11/2020 - 16:45
    +1

    The same as 99% of comments reflected on the FB post…

    • aspirepranesh on 05/11/2020 - 16:48

      Changed the title as it would make more sense considering most people here are sensible :)

      • spackbace on 05/11/2020 - 16:49
        +1

        I am really curious to know what OZB community thinks about this kind of behaviour?

        Which I'm still responding to anyway

  • EightImmortals on 05/11/2020 - 16:55
    +18

    I think the guy needs to learn how to reverse out of a carpark?

    • 91rs on 06/11/2020 - 12:17
      +14

      Jeep driver, he's got much bigger challenges ahead of him before tackling something as advanced as reversing.

  • brendanm on 05/11/2020 - 17:00
    +27

    It's a public road, you can be filmed without having to consent.

    • Euphemistic on 05/11/2020 - 21:08
      -3

      You can be filmed without consent but can you publish without consent? Uploading to YouTube is publishing.

      • brendanm on 05/11/2020 - 21:20
        +1

        Apparently so from what I can see.

      • Zondor on 06/11/2020 - 09:13
        +3

        Yes, If it's taken from public land the film is entirely your property and you can do what you want with your own property.

        • macrocephalic on 06/11/2020 - 10:15
          +3

          As long as you don't misrepresent the person in the footage.

    • jimbobaus on 06/11/2020 - 08:09
      +5

      Technically the car park is "Private land"
      but i honestly think same rules apply

      • brendanm on 06/11/2020 - 08:16
        +20

        Private in a filming sense is "somewhere you would reasonably expect privacy". So even in a "public" toilet, you cant film someone. Same as in a "private" carpark, it is privately owned, however no one expects privacy while in a car park.

        • jimbobaus on 06/11/2020 - 08:17

          Yeah i get you meaning :)
          100% Agree

    • 82norm on 06/11/2020 - 13:59
      -3

      Well, it’s a car park actually, not a public road.

  • steven6 on 05/11/2020 - 17:03
    +2

    we're gonna need a bigger b̶o̶a̶t̶ car park

    • perhaps on 05/11/2020 - 17:09
      +5

      were going to need a bigger (profanity) brain cell

      • AdosHouse on 05/11/2020 - 17:47
        +1

        Some people just need A brain cell.

        • perhaps on 05/11/2020 - 17:51

          haha gotta offset the negative IQ

          • AdosHouse on 05/11/2020 - 17:52
            +1

            @perhaps: Is negative IQ where if someone speaks, everyone hearing it feels dumber for having heard it?

  • kanmen on 05/11/2020 - 17:05
    +13

    I also appreciate that the person decided that the existence of the video was the reason they were getting abused and not the fact that they threatened to break someone's neck and that it's those that distribute the video who are responsible for any resulting damages

    • perhaps on 05/11/2020 - 17:10
      +12

      threatening to break someone's neck and almost reversing into them is fine, but god forbid anyone that shares the video

      • kanmen on 05/11/2020 - 17:32
        +18

        This guy must be one of those 'It's called free speech unless it's directed at me' kinda people

    • AustriaBargain on 05/11/2020 - 19:43
      +8

      If it weren't for the video he'd be calling her the biggest liar in the world right now, the most untrustworthy woman in the country. You can't give these people an inch.

  • 87percent on 05/11/2020 - 17:06
    +4

    if only i hadn't acted like a douche, and see the entire world how much i suck at driving… i'm guessing is what he's thinking

    • aspirepranesh on 05/11/2020 - 17:15
      +47

      Not sure what you were watching.

      At 0:08, she stops to let him reverse out of the spot, which is what any reasonable person would do.
      At 0:15, he is really close to her and I am pretty sure at that trajectory he was gonna hit her and she honked to let him know that she was there, which is again what any reasonable person would do to avoid unnecessary contact.
      At 0:19, she even reverses back to give this manchild more room. LOL.
      At 0:26, he reverses again in almost the same trajectory towards her car when she honks again!
      At 0:39, the genius still needs to be given space to get out. LOL again

      • AustriaBargain on 05/11/2020 - 19:42
        +1

        His car seemed to physically do a double-take when she beeped the second time. If we send another golden record into space, we should include this video in it as a study of human behaviour.

      • Windows98 on 06/11/2020 - 09:44
        +1

        Where can I find this video? Can you pm me a link?

        • whooah1979 on 06/11/2020 - 10:20
          +4

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL6VOVmN3E8

          Share it on your social media. The more likes it gets, the more people will see it.

          • Windows98 on 06/11/2020 - 10:24

            @whooah1979: Shocking. And with her children in the car to hear it all.

            He might have been having a bad day, but people need to learn to control their emotions. Or at least recognise it and apologize after the heat has dialled down.

            I wonder how the internet found out his personal info with just the number plate?

            • whooah1979 on 06/11/2020 - 10:34

              @Windows98:

              I wonder how the internet found out his personal info with just the number plate?

              Just file an FOI request.

              https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/about/access-to-information/docum…

              • Windows98 on 06/11/2020 - 10:37
                +1

                @whooah1979: That would be if for example the woman driver legitimately wanted to find his information to sue him through her lawyers. Not randoms online.

                Either way. He had a chance to learn from it but decided to double down.

            • Baghern on 06/11/2020 - 20:08
              +1

              @Windows98: Wantonly threatening violence has never been having a bad day thing

              Its called thinking you can get away with it … I remember this attitude when i was a teenager… kinda grew out of it

          • Baghern on 06/11/2020 - 20:01
            +3

            @whooah1979: Original with no blurring

            https://vimeo.com/475666907

            Forget looking up the license plate, looks like he's already had it de registered

            • Mainsail on 08/11/2020 - 08:11

              @Baghern: It just comes up with an error for me when I submit the form.

              Strange.

    • EightImmortals on 05/11/2020 - 17:21
      +7

      I think she was beeping to let him know how close he was getting.

        • brendanm on 05/11/2020 - 18:10
          +1

          Seems pretty fair if he was going the wrong way. I honked some moron who went around a roundabout the wrong way, and also the even stupider person who followed them.

        • apsilon on 05/11/2020 - 18:12
          +6

          Even her passenger was surprised she continued beeping the horn.

          The bloke you can hear is on the phone, not in the car, so couldn't see what was going on.

    • Ryanek on 05/11/2020 - 17:31
      +1

      I hope your comment makes it to the monthly stats.

    • mbck on 05/11/2020 - 17:38
      +3

      Your comment triggered me so much. I want compensation and an apology from you. This is all your fault.

    • whooah1979 on 05/11/2020 - 18:17
      +4

      The male driver is clearly not capable of driving such a large SUV. They should consider getting something smaller like a Mazda 2.

      • banana365 on 07/11/2020 - 22:18
        +1

        But how on earth will he advertise that's he's got a small willy?

    • bmerigan on 06/11/2020 - 23:02

      This feels like a trolling comment

    • berry580 on 08/11/2020 - 23:12

      I think you need to actually watch the video before commenting.
      Welcome to Australia btw.

  • trustnoone on 05/11/2020 - 17:15
    +4

    I'm not a lawyer but massive amounts of question mark from me from that note given. First it sounds like the incident is in South Aus, but legal is from NSW? Also the lawyer is trying to tell her that she'll be hit with imprisonment, fines etc. But its the NSW Government that goes after unlawful behaviour not some random lawyer. These fines are paid to the government, the police/legal would also be the one to tell you whether to remove the video, not some random lawyer.

    I also see this as a space where one would reasonably be recorded and have no privacy, to add to this I'd bet the parking lot has cameras littered all over the place there so they can't argue that its a private place.

    Lastly it says that they will go after that person who uploaded the video if they recieved damages of any kind by random people. I also don't think it works that way, you can sue for damages by the person who damaged you, or if someone is involved in a more specific way (like you pay someone to assault someone). But you can't just go after someone because a random person on the street saw that you were a dick and attacked you for it, you can only really sue that person. And again its for damages, and when you live in a country where you get free healthcare, you're probably looking at a week off work unless its something permanent, which I hope no one does to anyone.

    • aspirepranesh on 05/11/2020 - 17:17

      From the comments on DOA's FB page, the incident happened in NSW and DOA are in Murray Bridge which is in SA.

      • Caped Baldy on 06/11/2020 - 09:10

        I believe it happened in The Hills area.

        • EmCKay on 06/11/2020 - 09:16
          +2

          Yes, Winston Hills Mall car park.

    • brendanm on 05/11/2020 - 17:17
      +10

      Yeah that legal notice seems like it was written by someone pretending to be a lawyer. It's not even illegal to film someone in public, so police aren't going to care less.

      • trustnoone on 05/11/2020 - 17:24
        +3

        Exactly this! And even if the police somehow for some reason did care and did want to take this on as a case, they'd want to be grabbing all the evidence they can get right now. Not having a random lawyer tip-off a possible legal case to the person so that they could remove apparent "evidence".

        • brendanm on 05/11/2020 - 18:11

          Yes, doesn't really make sense does it.

        • 87percent on 05/11/2020 - 18:13
          +2

          Wouldn’t the police care regarding the threats the driver is making towards the lady?

      • apsilon on 05/11/2020 - 18:15
        +9

        It's a massive bluff. Disappointed to see DOA complied with it.

        • brendanm on 05/11/2020 - 18:24
          +2

          Very disappointing. Thinks he can bully that woman and dcoa.

        • capslock janitor on 06/11/2020 - 10:18

          Omg they complied? Wouldn't have expected that! Esp with all the support on their post.

          • apsilon on 06/11/2020 - 13:50
            +1

            @capslock janitor: Well the video is no longer on their channel so they either complied or Youtube removed it.

    • AustriaBargain on 05/11/2020 - 19:41
      +3

      She should bait him into paying a lawyer into taking her to court, then she can call the media and his humiliation will be complete and she'll have the final word on the steps of the court that laughs this guy out.

    • bobbified on 06/11/2020 - 20:57
      +1

      …but massive amounts of question mark from me from that note given.

      Username definitely checks out 😋

  • bobbified on 05/11/2020 - 17:30
    +8

    the privacy laws around dashcam footage in public places?

    There is no expectation of privacy in public places. The topic has been argued to death by photographers and the law is on their side.

    Apparently, the genius here has now threatened to sue DOA via a Law firm

    To be honest, I think he would've had more luck if he emailed them and asked nicely for the video to be removed. Threatening to sue in the first instance isn't always the best move.

  • whooah1979 on 05/11/2020 - 17:44
    +5

    The lady driver sounds rather composed considering the other driver's behaviour.

    https://au.news.yahoo.com/ill-break-your-neck-man-slammed-fo…

    • brendanm on 05/11/2020 - 18:13
      +1

      What a tough guy. I've only seen that picture, and she looks like she has given him a tonne of room.

    • bohn on 05/11/2020 - 19:03
      +5

      Agreed - she does sound composed all things considered.
      But that article.. '‘That is no way to talk to women’ - so if it was a man that it happened to it's all good? ;)
      Doesn't really matter if it was a woman (or whether there were kids in the car) - it's just unacceptable.

  • Kaz0551 on 05/11/2020 - 18:14
    +6

    Solutions Law really should have considered the PR backlash on this one. Unless the threatening male is related and they had no choice…

    • brendanm on 05/11/2020 - 18:26
      +8

      Check out their website, surely they can't be actual lawyers.

      Edit - Having a bit more of a look, they are property and business lawyers. I would hazard a guess that they know or are somehow related to the neck snapper.

      Edit again - They are getting savaged on their Google reviews 😂

      • No Username on 05/11/2020 - 18:41

        Is it just me or is the website now being blocked by Malwarebytes.

        Website blocked due to phishing
        Website blocked: www.solutionslaw.com.au

        Malwarebytes Browser Guard blocked this website because it may contain malware activity.
        We strongly recommend you do not continue.

        • brendanm on 05/11/2020 - 18:43

          No idea sorry, I just had a look on my phone. It probably thinks it's a scam website as it's so bad.

          • pegaxs on 05/11/2020 - 23:16
            +2

            @brendanm: Their Fartbook page is copping a beating as well… :D

            • brendanm on 05/11/2020 - 23:19

              @pegaxs: I don't have a bookface account so can't see unfortunately :(

      • Nads2407 on 06/11/2020 - 15:36

        If you look at their website and scroll down. Its not even finished. They have random boxes at the bottom that say "I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. I’m a great place for you to tell a story and let your users know a little more about you."

        (profanity) Lol

      • capslock janitor on 06/11/2020 - 22:57

        They're defos doing something to the "reviews" -
        bunch of 1 stars when i visited earlier today with avg2.6star, now most disappeared and avg3rating

        and someone today replying to actual reviews from years ago lmao ☠

        • Trance N Dance on 06/11/2020 - 23:48
          +1

          They're having Google remove non-genuine reviews

    • Baghern on 06/11/2020 - 20:10
      +1

      Already have seeing Reddit

      Solutionslaw is only a sub entity web page to make them look more professional

      Their actual webpage has also been hammered

      http://www.jabuda.com.au/

      Thought they could make a quick easy few 100 by sending a threatening letter in a field they DON'T specialise in

  • Drakesy on 05/11/2020 - 18:22
    +4

    If they sent out a letter of that quality on behalf of me i'd definitely ask for my money back.

    Looks like it's been copied and pasted from the internet with pretty poor english given the person who wrote it is supposedly a lawyer.

    Nothing wrong with disseminating it i guess. The guy made himself out to be a bit of a dropkick. although the lady honking him in the car park probably wasn't helping her case by driving up to him when he was quite obviously reversing.

    Still dashcams in a public space should always be legal.

    • diddy50 on 06/11/2020 - 22:00
      +4

      She didn't do anything wrong to warrant any abuse.

      Hardly got close either.

      This is squarely on the douche bag abuser

      • [Deactivated] on 06/11/2020 - 22:47
        -4

        maybe try watching the video with audio this time

        then your second comment where you verify that she hardly got close will show that maybe the beeping was unnecessary?

        • capslock janitor on 06/11/2020 - 23:18
          +2

          Rager spotted.

          Go watch the video again. He didn't need to reverse like a prick back into her.
          https://youtu.be/dL6VOVmN3E8?t=20

          • [Deactivated] on 06/11/2020 - 23:26
            -1

            @capslock janitor: you can't tell from the video how much space he had to turn after reversing out because he did it mostly straight

            you don't know the turning circle of his car

            you are just accusing me of being a rager when any legal court would ask these questions as well.

            • capslock janitor on 06/11/2020 - 23:34
              +6

              @[Deactivated]: Mate he didn't even turn his steering wheel right the second time. Nothing to do with turning circle.

              • [Deactivated] on 06/11/2020 - 23:46
                -8

                @capslock janitor: maybe he developed or already had sweaty hands and his hand kept slipping on the wheel after being horn blasted.

                or he was upset at all the beeping and couldn't drive properly anymore. ever seen a women in shock behind a wheel because of something she saw on the road? they start trembling and completely forget how to drive. it's common (and with some men too).

                anger and frustration does lead to a lot of accidents and it's lucky nothing happened here.

    • whooah1979 on 05/11/2020 - 18:38
      +2

      "Get some manners" LOL.

      He waited for the other guys to leave before putting on his boy pants.

      • pharkurnell on 05/11/2020 - 18:42

        I reckon if the bike rider had 2 arms he would have humiliated that dude in teh wife beater LOL

    • aspirepranesh on 05/11/2020 - 18:40

      What a bunch of knobs!

    • bohn on 05/11/2020 - 19:18
      +1

      what idiots.
      although, whilst the guy shouldn't have to put up with that abuse - he really could have got rid of them a lot quicker if he wanted to.

    • payton on 05/11/2020 - 20:33
      +1

      was sleepy and ready for bed, now wide awake, thanks adrenaline

    • John Kimble on 05/11/2020 - 21:10
      +4

      Shit, I've been wasting my time with DCOA…this is where the action is it seems?!

    • superuser on 07/11/2020 - 10:13

      Barking dog never bites?

  • No Username on 05/11/2020 - 18:32
    +6

    Solutions Law Google Reviews are a goldmine.
    Google Review

    • aspirepranesh on 05/11/2020 - 18:35
      +3

      lol. looks like they are being hammered by DOA fans standing up for the woman!

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join