Permission to snap public performers?

[CYRN]

Hmm, can tell us which section you are looking at?

I only see Section 3(2), which states that:

3(2): Any person who takes or makes any photograph, drawing, map, measurement, sounding or survey of or within a prohibited place, shall, unless he proves that the thing so taken or made is not prejudicial to the safety or interests of Singapore and is not intended to be directly or indirectly useful to a foreign Power or to an enemy, be guilty of an offence

Provided that it shall not be an offence under this subsection to take or make, outside a prohibited place, a photograph or drawing in which such place or part thereof is included, unless it is proved that the photograph or drawing is intended to be prejudicial to the safety or interests of Singapore or to be directly or indirectly useful to a foreign Power or to an enemy. This proviso does not apply to any photograph taken from an aircraft.



Anyway, the OSA talks about prohibited place and not protected place. Guess we used the wrong terms .

Yeah, that should be covered under protected area, protected place act. :embrass:

For prohibited place, Section 2 (1) d,e,f. but note Section 3 (6)

 

[Clement Low]

my experience was even funnier. i walked around carrying the dslr around my neck sometimes around the chinatown area. the shopkeeper immediately shouted "no photos" even when I have not even enter the shop yet.... just passing by...? :what:

funnier leh. like that also can??? :what:

that shop keeper sell fake goods from China one issit? :bigeyes:

 

[Parka]

For people to react so forcefully when their photos are taken, you can be sure they have in mind that the effect when the photo is out will be as great or greater.

These people have something to hide.

 

[Yatlapball]

Sometimes... perhaps there have been rude and thoughtless photographers who have repeated pissed them off which results in their mindset against anybody carrying a large(r) camera round. I recall reading of an incident about a traditional wedding in a hindu(?) temple being disrupted by some jack*sses on a "photography outing"?

 

[vince123123]

To make out a case under Section 3(6), do note that that it still needs to be shown that "it appears that his purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of Singapore."

Also, the proviso to Section 3(2) will still apply if you are trying to make out an offence for someone for taking a photograph of a prohibited place. Section 3(6) just reduces the burden of proof required, but does not nullify the provisio to Section 3(2).

Yeah, that should be covered under protected area, protected place act. :embrass:

For prohibited place, Section 2 (1) d,e,f. but note Section 3 (6)

 

[zoossh]

To make out a case under Section 3(6), do note that that it still needs to be shown that "it appears that his purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of Singapore."

Also, the proviso to Section 3(2) will still apply if you are trying to make out an offence for someone for taking a photograph of a prohibited place. Section 3(6) just reduces the burden of proof required, but does not nullify the provisio to Section 3(2).

hi, vince, do you mind helping to explain the gist in more layman terms? thank you in advance.

 

[CYRN]

To make out a case under Section 3(6), do note that that it still needs to be shown that "it appears that his purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of Singapore."

Also, the proviso to Section 3(2) will still apply if you are trying to make out an offence for someone for taking a photograph of a prohibited place. Section 3(6) just reduces the burden of proof required, but does not nullify the provisio to Section 3(2).

oic.. thanks for the explaination.

But it still mean that anyone authorised is able to stop you from taking pics of prohibited place even if you are outside the boundaries, right? Since they can apply 3(6) up front and treat you as potential spy/terrorist until the matter is clarified.

 

[Bosty]

if im not wrong i just read from newspaper saying no photography in MRT stations

 

[Danntbt]

While I agree that we should respect their decision not to be photographed, but I think this street performer may be a fake one or illegal immigrant, thus scared the relevant authorities captures any evidence against him, or news reporter that prove him is a fake.

To me personally, I don't think taking photographs in the public area, of the general public, or people on street, needs any permission. But just that if they noticed you and do not like to be photographed, then just smile and stop taking photo on them, if need be, just delete the photo(s) in front of them.

Ya...just delete then go back and retrieve using Image rescue.....but seriously....it's better to respect others' privacy, regardless whether in public places or not.