Help Identify This Criminal

[exphats]

Hope someone can identify this person in the video who beat up someone and then tried to snatch the mobile phone when he discovered he was being recorded. Thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0snGplDcbys

[Strong Eagle]

I dunno mate... I don't see anything criminal on that video... just some woman that is objecting to you taking her picture.

[edit]I'm editing my original post: What the hell are you doing recording people that are strangers? I'd be pissed off, too. They were probably trying to take your handphone to erase the video.

Dumb move all around mate.

[/end edit]

[offshoreoildude]

Yep I'd agree. Even worse you were filming a minor without the parents permission. There is no specific right to privacy in Singapore and hence the mothers reaction is logically and possibly her only choice (i.e. to stop you taking more pictures or movies of her child she needed to intervene). Furthermore; your action should you continue to film the mother could have caused her to file a complaint with the SPF of you causing offense to her modesty. Suck to be you.

[x9200]

Yep I'd agree. Even worse you were filming a minor without the parents permission. There is no specific right to privacy in Singapore and hence the mothers reaction is logically and possibly her only choice (i.e. to stop you taking more pictures or movies of her child she needed to intervene). Furthermore; your action should you continue to film the mother could have caused her to file a complaint with the SPF of you causing offense to her modesty. Suck to be you.

What is likely illegal is to publish images/movies of a private person that could be recognized this way. So including this alleged criminal, all people who are well the dominating object (within the frame) of the movie could sue our OP providing (s)he was the person who uploaded it to YT. As for the modesty offense I can recognize your favorite subject but do you have any example of the court ruling supporting your words?

[offshoreoildude]

Yep I'd agree. Even worse you were filming a minor without the parents permission. There is no specific right to privacy in Singapore and hence the mothers reaction is logically and possibly her only choice (i.e. to stop you taking more pictures or movies of her child she needed to intervene). Furthermore; your action should you continue to film the mother could have caused her to file a complaint with the SPF of you causing offense to her modesty. Suck to be you.

What is likely illegal is to publish images/movies of a private person that could be recognized this way. So including this alleged criminal, all people who are well the dominating object (within the frame) of the movie could sue our OP providing (s)he was the person who uploaded it to YT. As for the modesty offense I can recognize your favorite subject but do you have any example of the court ruling supporting your words?

I truly don't believe there is a right to privacy in Singapore - or are you thinking of a commercial situation where the 'model' has not signed a release. As for outrage of modesty - if you read the act you'll see the woman only has to be 'offended by any action' - which she was. Whether the police would act on her police report is another matter.

But to ask again - why do you say it's illegal to publish images/movies of person who is in public? All of my reading of Singapore legislation and case law does not support that. Perhaps it comes under 'nuisance'?

[x9200]

I said it is likely. I think so because this kind of law exists elsewhere (i.e EU) and is connected with IP law / or/and civil based privacy protection. IP law adapted in Singapore just few years ago is very similar to EU. So frankly I don't know but I am also aware of some legal suits against taxi drivers only for the fact their accident cameras pointed out in the direction of their passengers. Recording itself is by its nature much lesser offence of privacy than publishing the materials out.
What they don't have in Singapore (AFAIK) is a generic protection of personal data (except some industry specific cases like banking, health etc) in a single statute so everybody can collect the data and use it in many ways. In EU this is protected by some separate acts but things like in this thread are protected typically by the mentioned civil and IP laws so again, not a specific unified statutes.

BTW, what this woman did was an assault

[the lynx]

I said it is likely. I think so because this kind of law exists elsewhere (i.e EU) and is connected with IP law / or/and civil based privacy protection. IP law adapted in Singapore just few years ago is very similar to EU. So frankly I don't know but I am also aware of some legal suits against taxi drivers only for the fact their accident cameras pointed out in the direction of their passengers. Recording itself is by its nature much lesser offence of privacy than publishing the materials out.
What they don't have in Singapore (AFAIK) is a generic protection of personal data (except some industry specific cases like banking, health etc) in a single statute so everybody can collect the data and use it in many ways. In EU this is protected by some separate acts but things like in this thread are protected typically by the mentioned civil and IP laws so again, not a specific unified statutes.

BTW, what this woman did was an assault

I see.

Do correct me if I'm wrong. So recording a person as an evidence for legal purposes is allowed, and publishing such recordings is a no-no?

The reason I'm asking is because I fail to imagine how else would a victim be able to seek justice if such evidence is not acceptable, or the victim himself/herself will risk defamation suit or charges of privacy invasion instead.

[JayCee]

Hope someone can identify this person in the video who beat up someone and then tried to snatch the mobile phone when he discovered he was being recorded. Thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0snGplDcbys

I didn't see anyone getting beat up, all I saw was a creepy video made by a guy who appears to enjoy filming strangers when they don't like it.

Calling the people on the video criminals could be construed as slander.

Why not get a life, instead of filming other people's?

[x9200]

I see.

Do correct me if I'm wrong. So recording a person as an evidence for legal purposes is allowed, and publishing such recordings is a no-no?

Recording is always allowed if this does not drastically violates your privacy (i.e. a toilet, stalking like annoyance etc.) and for any purpose as long as it is not published any way.

The reason I'm asking is because I fail to imagine how else would a victim be able to seek justice if such evidence is not acceptable, or the victim himself/herself will risk defamation suit or charges of privacy invasion instead.

I think you are mixing up two things. Publishing and an admission to the court. The idea of accepting or rejecting the evidence is AFAIK something of the US law and is not present in EU and I don't think it is present in SG. All evidence could be admitted subject to the decision of the judge.
Publishing means presenting the materials to a public, be it printed (newspaper, brochures etc) or made available online or shown in the movie theatre where a larger group of people could see it. Publishing is NOT showing it to the court (unless it is tv covered), or your colleague, or your brother or even a few close friends.

So yes, you can record what you want and court may use it against your offender.

Again and with big emphasis I am speculating based on my knowledge of EU law and some similarities to SG law...

[the lynx]

I see.

Do correct me if I'm wrong. So recording a person as an evidence for legal purposes is allowed, and publishing such recordings is a no-no?

Recording is always allowed if this does not drastically violates your privacy (i.e. a toilet, stalking like annoyance etc.) and for any purpose as long as it is not published any way.

The reason I'm asking is because I fail to imagine how else would a victim be able to seek justice if such evidence is not acceptable, or the victim himself/herself will risk defamation suit or charges of privacy invasion instead.

I think you are mixing up two things. Publishing and an admission to the court. The idea of accepting or rejecting the evidence is AFAIK something of US law and is not present in EU and I don't think it is present in SG. All evidence could be admitted subject to the decision of the judge.
Publishing means presenting the materials to a public, be it printed (newspaper, brochures etc) or made available online or shown in the movie theatre where a larger group of people could see it. Publishing is NOT showing it to the court (unless it is tv covered), or your colleague, or your brother or even a few close friends.

Again and with big emphasis I am speculating based on my knowledge of EU law and some similarities to SG law...

Ah I get it thanks.

[ecureilx]

lucky for the guy who took the video .. if he was in a nearby asian country, he could have been locked up as a pedophile ... for taking video of the child ..

[offshoreoildude]

lucky for the guy who took the video .. if he was in a nearby asian country, he could have been locked up as a pedophile ... for taking video of the child ..

In Australia you need to very careful recording children for that exact reason. Don't even take pics of your kids in the bathtub for example.

[ecureilx]

lucky for the guy who took the video .. if he was in a nearby asian country, he could have been locked up as a pedophile ... for taking video of the child ..

In Australia you need to very careful recording children for that exact reason. Don't even take pics of your kids in the bathtub for example.

+1 !

and in any case, my colleague here profferred a possible reason for the video .. the video could have been taken with the intention of posting in STOMP or Temasek Review .. and title it scandalously .. and she essentially said she too would have been offended and pissed if somebody did the same to her ..

[offshoreoildude]

I said it is likely. I think so because this kind of law exists elsewhere (i.e EU) and is connected with IP law / or/and civil based privacy protection. IP law adapted in Singapore just few years ago is very similar to EU. So frankly I don't know but I am also aware of some legal suits against taxi drivers only for the fact their accident cameras pointed out in the direction of their passengers. Recording itself is by its nature much lesser offence of privacy than publishing the materials out.
What they don't have in Singapore (AFAIK) is a generic protection of personal data (except some industry specific cases like banking, health etc) in a single statute so everybody can collect the data and use it in many ways. In EU this is protected by some separate acts but things like in this thread are protected typically by the mentioned civil and IP laws so again, not a specific unified statutes.

BTW, what this woman did was an assault

Assault is allowable as a response in self-defense in Singapore. She was offended (an offense as I have established). She had a perfectly good reason to respond with violence in a limited and controlled manner in order to stop the offense on her and her child - which she appears to have done. I doubt any SPF officer would charge her. Sucks to be the OP - maybe he needs to get a life.

[offshoreoildude]

lucky for the guy who took the video .. if he was in a nearby asian country, he could have been locked up as a pedophile ... for taking video of the child ..

In Australia you need to very careful recording children for that exact reason. Don't even take pics of your kids in the bathtub for example.

+1 !

and in any case, my colleague here profferred a possible reason for the video .. the video could have been taken with the intention of posting in STOMP or Temasek Review .. and title it scandalously .. and she essentially said she too would have been offended and pissed if somebody did the same to her ..

Virtual rape. freak TR is out of control these days.