Spy camera in teddy – but no common law action for victim

April 24, 2008 |

The Sydney Morning Herald and the West Australian cover a case of a Perth man being charged with using a nanny cam to video his female flatmate. 

The story follows a familiar theme, camera trained on area where females will undress and connected to VCR or digital recording device in a remote or adjacent location.  In the workplace it is often sleazy boss setting up pin hole camera in the toilets.  Here it is sleazy flate mate putting camera in bedroom.

It is an offence in all states to use such surveillance devices to record a private activity.  And so there should be.  But why isn’t there an invasion of privacy.  There isn’t any common law right yet.  Why not.  Isn’t there any expectation of privacy?  It is just ridiculous that the law has not made the jump to protect and enforce privacy rights, as is the case in New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. 

Leave a Reply