# Stalker used eye reflections in online photos



## VidThreeNorth (Oct 14, 2019)

On the one hand, where I live, "street photography" is essentially limited by law, but on the other hand, people are posting pictures and videos of themselves publicly.  Some people understand the issues, such as what can be potentially dangerous, and others don't.

"Report: Stalker used eye reflections in online photos to locate, assault pop star"
by Brittany Hillen, published Oct 14, 2019, DPReview.com

Report: Stalker used eye reflections in online photos to locate, assault pop star


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Oct 14, 2019)

VidThreeNorth said:


> Some people understand the issues, such as what can be potentially dangerous, and others don't.



It was the stalker who was dangerous, not the photo.


----------



## dennybeall (Oct 16, 2019)

At least with eye reflections the stalker had to work at it. So many folks post their photos with the exif data still attached, sometimes including their GPS info.


----------



## Original katomi (Oct 16, 2019)

Not only that they post pics of their home area. Here is my fav cafe, my street, and oh dear I have inc the house with the bright green door that posted a pic of last week saying how it’s gross and next door to mine. 
A case of follow the bread crumbs or follow the selfie


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Oct 29, 2019)

If unbeknown to me,  someone wants to use the information I captured in a photo for some nefarious deed, that is on them not me.  I have enough to do keeping my own house in order.


----------



## VidThreeNorth (Oct 29, 2019)

I have thought about this since I ran across the article.  To this day, I am not sure if I agree with my local laws (essentially that I cannot take pictures of strangers where they can be identified).  As some of you might know, I have done my best to comply with the law, and will continue to do so.  I just don't know how much good it does.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Oct 29, 2019)

I was under the impression that public streets are public streets and there is no assumption of privacy. Hence the proliferation of video surveillance cameras on store fronts, traffic lights and private residences in many large cities.  

The nightly news camera folks would certainly be the first to be sued. 

If you want to do street photography, the best disguise is a worker's safety vest, a hard hat and a tripod with some orange tape.  It makes you look official.


----------



## Tropicalmemories (Oct 30, 2019)

I'm so happy to be living in a culture where it's seen as a compliment if someone wants to take your photo.

Trying to take natural street shots without someone striking a pose is the biggest challenge.


----------



## earthmanbuck (Oct 31, 2019)

Grandpa Ron said:


> I was under the impression that public streets are public streets and there is no assumption of privacy. Hence the proliferation of video surveillance cameras on store fronts, traffic lights and private residences in many large cities.


When I'm not an amateur photographer, I'm a lawyer, and I can say that this is generally the case, at least in most democratic societies I am aware of—although it would usually be within a legislative body's power to put restrictions on it, provided they weren't excessive. Now I'm curious, though—where do you live, @VidThreeNorth ? 



Grandpa Ron said:


> The nightly news camera folks would certainly be the first to be sued.


That's a little different, since the press specifically have constitutional protections (in Canada and the US for sure, but I assume also in most of the Western world).


----------



## Braineack (Oct 31, 2019)

not much of a news story here.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 31, 2019)

Sometimes, even fingerprints can be made from a photograph.


----------



## VidThreeNorth (Nov 1, 2019)

earthmanbuck said:


> . . .
> Now I'm curious, though—where do you live, @VidThreeNorth ?



Hah!  You must be new.  I have posted many pictures "here" and many short videos on YouTube, and for most of them, I include locations.  Almost all of them were recorded in Toronto, with a few exceptions in Mississauga (the city adjacent to Toronto on the west side).  From that much, I think it would take you about 2 sec. to come to a conclusion.




480sparky said:


> Sometimes, even fingerprints can be made from a photograph.



I suppose in the back of my mind I "knew" that, but thinking about it now it's very disturbing.  It would not take the "Impossible Mission" team to fake finger prints.  It renders finger print locks for phones and such, mmm, limited in value?  Passwords, properly used, would be safer, if you change them often.


----------



## VidThreeNorth (Nov 1, 2019)

About the law more generally:  When the law changed, I was not doing photography, so I was not really paying attention.  I am pretty sure this is a Provincial level law, so it would apply throughout Ontario, but not in other provinces.  That would be like a Vermont law not having any effect in California.  The other possibilities are Municipal level (the City), and I don't think it is something the City could pass, and Federal (applying to the whole country, unless specifically limited).  I think it is part of "Privacy" law.

Also, now that I think about it, I'm not sure if the law says I cannot take the picture or just cannot publish the picture.  I have been more worried about "publishing" the picture, since I have a natural inclination to not take pictures that others might find annoying, but sometimes I get people in a picture unavoidably.


----------



## earthmanbuck (Nov 1, 2019)

VidThreeNorth said:


> About the law more generally:  When the law changed, I was not doing photography, so I was not really paying attention.  I am pretty sure this is a Provincial level law, so it would apply throughout Ontario, but not in other provinces.  That would be like a Vermont law not having any effect in California.  The other possibilities are Municipal level (the City), and I don't think it is something the City could pass, and Federal (applying to the whole country, unless specifically limited).  I think it is part of "Privacy" law.
> 
> Also, now that I think about it, I'm not sure if the law says I cannot take the picture or just cannot publish the picture.  I have been more worried about "publishing" the picture, since I have a natural inclination to not take pictures that others might find annoying, but sometimes I get people in a picture unavoidably.


I'm not sure exactly what law you're referring to, but everything I can find on the topic suggests street photography is perfectly legal in Toronto/Ontario, with a few exceptions—some unique to the area, but most pretty common.

You can't be trespassing on private property, or otherwise breaking the law while taking a photo (obviously). This is the case practically everywhere. In Canada, trespassing on private property at night if there is a dwelling house nearby is also a criminal offence.
You can't take pictures of people anywhere they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy". Ontario, as far as I can tell after some very light research, does not actually have a specific law about this as some other provinces do, but "breach of privacy" is a tort at common law, and you run the risk of being sued. It's pretty well-established in Canada that a person's reasonable expectation of privacy is either nonexistent or greatly diminished in public places, such as on the street. However, you should be careful about shooting in the direction of people's backyards or homes, where your camera might capture something through a window (or at least use a polarizing filter ).
Going a bit further: you cannot surreptitiously take photographs anywhere where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and could reasonably be expected to be nude, exposing their genitals, or engaged in sexual activity. This is criminal voyeurism under the Canadian _Criminal Code_, and you could be charged.
In Toronto, you can't shoot for payment on city property without a permit. So no parks, no government buildings, etc. Shooting in general is totally fine, you just can't do it commercially without the permit. It's not very clear to me whether this also includes sidewalks—the definition of "park" in the municipal code is a bit ambiguous—but since the aim of this section is to keep large productions from clogging up public spaces, I doubt you'd ever be hassled for taking simple street photographs if you weren't wearing a sandwich board that said "I'M DOING THIS FOR $$$$". 
So again, as far as I can tell, it's totally legal to be taking pictures in public, as long as you're not otherwise breaking the law or doing so commercially.


----------



## ClickAddict (Nov 1, 2019)

Tropicalmemories said:


> I'm so happy to be living in a culture where it's seen as a compliment if someone wants to take your photo.
> 
> Trying to take natural street shots without someone striking a pose is the biggest challenge.



Years ago, my brother in law (A Photography student at the time) self taught himself to shoot from the hip and get the shot composed as he wanted without looking through the viewfinder.  Very practical as, like you mentioned, people had a tendency often he found, to pose or turn away, from the camera.  Even if they were not the main subject, but mostly background.  Just walking downtown, camera on neck strap, one hand on camera, he would snap away without anyone the wiser.  His technique resulted in a better percentage of "natural" poses.  (Personally I'm a fan of getting everyone's permission, even for circumstances when not required, so although I can appreciate street photography, I cant bring myself to shoot it.)


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 1, 2019)

earthmanbuck said:


> VidThreeNorth said:
> 
> 
> > About the law more generally:  When the law changed, I was not doing photography, so I was not really paying attention.  I am pretty sure this is a Provincial level law, so it would apply throughout Ontario, but not in other provinces.  That would be like a Vermont law not having any effect in California.  The other possibilities are Municipal level (the City), and I don't think it is something the City could pass, and Federal (applying to the whole country, unless specifically limited).  I think it is part of "Privacy" law.
> ...



That's what the LAW says.  Most people don't give a rodents' rectum about laws.


----------

