If you do not use tools such as recorders or video cameras, is the above-mentioned illegal act illegal?
I’m testing the microphone now. Good morning. started. Now, I would like to present my big question here. Recently, the widespread use of smartphones has caused a great deal of trouble. That’s it. “Voyeur”. This is recognized as an act that should not be done. If taken without notice, you feel uncomfortable. Hey, if you want to take a picture, take me beautifully. And before small video cameras became popular, the act of “wiretapping” became a problem. This is the act of recording or listening to someone else’s conversation without permission.
People can see the landscape as long as their eyes are open. Sometimes there are people in the landscape. Even if you see that person, nobody usually gets the person’s permission. As you walk along the road, you hear a loud, spoken conversation that someone is talking about. Have you obtained in advance the consent of the people in the conversation regarding what you heard the conversation in? Usually, you do not get. If the act of seeing or hearing was done without permission, would it not touch the law? That’s a question.
From that point of view, the reason why you should not do voyeurs or eavesdropping is probably because of infringement of portrait rights and copyrights. Video and audio data are recorded on the medium by using a video camera or recorder. From the possibility of secondary use of the data, in other words from the standpoint of protecting copyright and portrait rights, may not be good voyeur and wiretapping acts.
I do not know what kind of thought the person who developed the law was. However, if the illegality of voyeurs and eavesdropping is stated, I think that one of the grounds there should be the issue of portrait rights and copyright.
9 Privacy, Law Enforcement, and National Security | Engaging
Well, I talked at a stretch today. I have broken my glasses and I have to go buy now. I am in trouble. There is no right to this text. The secondary use is free, please diffuse if possible. Please correct any errors or omissions. Today’s post is over. Thank you
From the possibility of secondary use of the data
I have one question. If you do not use tools such as recorders or video cameras, is the above-mentioned illegal act illegal? For example, the act of not recording a person’s figure but viewing it without permission. Then, the act of listening without permission without recording another person’s conversation. Or you can hear it. Is it illegal if you hear it? If it is illegal, how do you crack down?People can see the landscape as long as their eyes are open. Sometimes there are people in the landscape. Even if you see that person, nobody usually gets the person’s permission. As you walk along the road, you hear a loud, spoken conversation that someone is talking about. Have you obtained in advance the consent of the people in the conversation regarding what you heard the conversation in? Usually, you do not get. If the act of seeing or hearing was done without permission, would it not touch the law? That’s a question.
From that point of view, the reason why you should not do voyeurs or eavesdropping is probably because of infringement of portrait rights and copyrights. Video and audio data are recorded on the medium by using a video camera or recorder. From the possibility of secondary use of the data, in other words from the standpoint of protecting copyright and portrait rights, may not be good voyeur and wiretapping acts.
I do not know what kind of thought the person who developed the law was. However, if the illegality of voyeurs and eavesdropping is stated, I think that one of the grounds there should be the issue of portrait rights and copyright.
Well, I talked at a stretch today. I have broken my glasses and I have to go buy now. I am in trouble. There is no right to this text. The secondary use is free, please diffuse if possible. Please correct any errors or omissions. Today’s post is over. Thank you
Comments