What is Secret photography？

Post Reply New Topic

I used to think that taking photos under a girl's skirt was a typical secret photography.

The definition of this on Wiki is: Secret photography is the use of an image or video recording device to photograph or film a person who is unaware that they are being intentionally photographed or filmed. It is sometimes called covert photography.

Today my girlfriend shared her opinion with me: a male classmate took photos of a female classmate while she was giving a presentation and posted them in a small group for vulgar discussions. She thinks this kind of secret photography is unethical.

But I think this behavior, at least when the shutter is pressed, cannot be blamed. Because the presentation is an open act in a public place, and the phone is not under the skirt.

I heard that the West attaches more importance to the right of portrait. What do you think?

I think consent is a big thing. Verbal consent must be given when taking photos of someone even if in public. (Yes I even mean between celebrities and paparazzi)

That bit about posting to a small group for vulgar comments is a bit nasty, even though this is the internet, we should have a bit of respect for peoples dignity. I don't blame him if he posted in good intention and the comments turned vulgar, but I do blame him if he posted with the intention of the vulgar comments.

Regarding your question. Secret/stealth photography doesn't always mean under a skirt. I think it just means taking a photo of someone who either does not know they are being photographed or there isn't a reasonable expectation that they are being photographed.

It's pretty creepy. Taking pictures of someone doing a presentation isn't something one should have to do covertly. The only reason for that would be someone who's up to no good. Which was obviously the case with that person. Maybe if someone did that to him, he'd understand the problem with it.

I remember one time I was in a fancy university library sitting in a fancy wingback chair reading an old book. And I'm pretty sure someone who was in there taking pictures, snapped a picture of me. But it didn't bother me any. Considering the setting it was probably a good shot.

Consent...

What about whistle-blowing like secretly recording businesses violating pollution & safty laws or politicians colluding making shady backroom deals In these instances going to the media with the footage might be necessary to raise public awareness since businesses & politicians sometimes have a lot of influence over the justice department.
I agree with everything else you said.

You have a point, whistleblowing seems to be the exception. I consider it more gathering evidence of a crime than anything else. And it's already been established that gathering evidence of a crime is in the public's best interest.

In the UK you don't need the permission of a person to take their photograph if you're on public property.

I've had to explain that to several people in the past when I was doing work for newspapers and they objected to being photographed. Lots of people assume you need permission.

You can get done for harrassment if you're following/stalking someone though.

If it's private property you need the permission of the landowner to take photos, but not the permission of the person you photographed.

I don't think accidentally capturing someone in a compromising situation is a problem, but deliberately taking compromising and vulgar photos without permission should definitely lead to some consequences.

Actually the OP brings up an interesting conundrum. At what point does video/photography become invasive? In Melbourne we have a lot of tourists. It shouldn't be surprising that it tends to be tourists from a particular geographic zone who walk around with selfie sticks a couple of minutes speaking to the phone camera and then sweeping video of people sitting and having coffee or walking around who don't seem particularly thrilled being filmed but say nothing.

Ive had tourists from aforementioned geographic region point blank video tape me to my face then sweep around taking people walking by. I've also seen them video tape beaches from a distance taking people sunbaking.

then there's the ever present vloggers and podcasters and youtubers who don't ask permission, often taping people, ask them questions and then upload the videos without permission.

But for me its the tourists, many of whom are male and often taking video of females. At what point is it an invasion of privacy?

Last edited by cyberdora on 30 May 2025, 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

^ when the photographer or videoographer Focuses on one human subject, that's where the line is drawn. Thats where you need to ask consent from that specific individual.

I get that in modern times people like to capture places they've been. And it's fine to do so, even when people are in the background. In saying that, intention matters. If they post to tiktok and ask "why are australian people so ugly" then that does invade privacy. Because some of those people may not want to be made an example of a generalisation.

^^^ this makes sense

I haven't seen a lot of negative stuff about Melbourne or Melbourne people on the internet. Generally we live in one of the most liveable cities in the world. But I do see foreign tourists and foreign workers post stuff about Melbourne and Sydney being too expensive to live. A few also complain we Aussies are friendly but don't make close friends so they tend to hang around other foreigners (to be fair that's something that happens in every country).

I've also seen a few youtubers walk around the streets of Melbourne asking "local" Aussies questions and 90% of the people they film or talk to end up being first gen migrants or other tourists

^^ Melbourne being too expensive is a fair assessment. I'm just happy Melbourne is getting some publicity. It wasn't that long ago that you'd ask a foreigner what they think of Australia and the only thing they think of is the iconic Sydney Opera house.

Sydney still > Melbourne in terms of best known Australian cities (no doubt) but Melbourne is the cultural/arts centre of the country. Melbourne has more curiosities for sightseeing and eating/drinking places > Sydney.

the artsy nature of Melbourne makes it more photographic for snap happy tourists. Sydney siders come down for the shopping as well (we have better shopping) whereas Melbournites go to Sydney for the night life and festivals. Sydney folk are a little more easy going in my view, we Melbournites tend to more conservative on average.

^^ That's an on point observation, I've never been to Sydney so i can't personally compare the two. The Sydney folk i do know have stated those exact complaints. "Dead" nightlife but better shopping.

Ain't that so. I've been able to have the best chats in the middle of Sydney or Circular quay with random people at midnight and the place is always a vibe. Melbourne at night-time is like most other Australian capital cities, everything shuts down and people want to mind their own business and get mildly irritated if you try starting a conversation.