字号 ·· | 护眼
亚洲新闻台

CNA解析:新加坡的智能眼镜与法律——何时拍摄陌生人会越界?

点「原文对照」整页切到原文,或双击某段只看那段的原文。

新加坡:本周,一段视频在社交媒体上广泛传播,视频中一名男子疑似佩戴智能眼镜尾随女学生,此事已引发警方立案调查,并引发了关于在公共场所拍摄陌生人是否合法的质疑。

SINGAPORE: A video showing a man purportedly wearing smart glasses while trailing female students circulated on social media this week, prompting a police report and raising questions about the legality of filming strangers in public.

视频中,该男子将手机紧贴胸前,并在某一时刻按下了其黑框眼镜的镜框。

In the video, the man held his mobile phone close to his chest and, at one point, pressed the frame of his black-rimmed glasses.

他似乎佩戴着智能眼镜,这是一种可穿戴设备,具备拍照、录像和通话等多种功能。

He appeared to be wearing smart glasses, a type of wearable technology that lets users take photos, film videos and make calls, among other functions.

此类设备加剧了人们对隐私及未经同意拍摄行为的担忧。周三,科技巨头Meta在舆论压力下发布了无摄像头版本的智能眼镜。

Such devices have fuelled growing concerns about privacy and filming without consent. On Wednesday, technology giant Meta released a camera-free version of its smart glasses amid the pushback.

随着智能眼镜不断涌入市场,新加坡亚洲新闻台(CNA)采访了律师,探讨在公共场所拍摄何时会越界。在公共场所未经他人同意拍摄是否违法?

Such devices have fuelled growing concerns about privacy and filming without consent. On Wednesday, technology giant Meta released a camera-free version of its smart glasses amid the pushback. As smart glasses continue to hit the shelves, CNA speaks to lawyers about when filming in public crosses the line.

Quahe Woo and Palmer律师事务所高级律师郭慧仪(Joyce Khoo)表示,在公共场所拍摄本身并不自动构成违法,因为人们在该环境下通常没有隐私期待。

Is it illegal to film others in public without their consent? Filming in public is not automatically illegal, since a person generally has no expectation of privacy in that setting, said Ms Joyce Khoo, a senior associate lawyer at Quahe Woo and Palmer.

但如果拍摄行为具有窥视性质,或侵犯了个人隐私,则可能构成违法。

But filming may cross into illegality if it is done in a voyeuristic manner or intrudes on a person's privacy.

她指出,这可能包括拍摄他人的私密部位(无论是否穿着衣物),或在他人进行淋浴、如厕等私密行为时进行拍摄。

This could include filming a person's private areas, whether bare or clothed, or filming them during a private act such as showering or using the toilet, she said.

她补充说,如果拍摄行为是骚扰或跟踪的一部分,或伴随其他违法行为(例如进入异性厕所),在公共场所拍摄也可能构成违法。

Filming in public may also become illegal if it is part of harassment or stalking, or accompanied by other unlawful conduct, such as entering the toilet of the opposite gender, she added.

Invictus Law律师事务所主任王冠宇(Cory Wong)表示,可以从拍摄者的行为中推断其意图。

Invictus Law director Cory Wong said the intent can be inferred from the filmer's actions.

如果拍摄行为分多次进行,或者是一次性但持续时间较长的行为,根据《防止骚扰法》(POHA),这可能构成跟踪行为。“很难认为这种窥探性、持续性的拍摄行为是出于善意。如果被拍摄的对象是未成年人,这种情况会更加严重。”他说。

If the filming occurs on two or more occasions, or is a single but protracted act, it could constitute stalking under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA)“It is hard to argue that a voyeuristic, persistent or protracted act of filming was done without any ill intent. There is also the aggravating factor of vulnerable victims if minors are the ones being filmed,” he said.

当这些视频被上传到网上时会发生什么? Khoo 女士表示,即使拍摄行为本身是合法的,但如果这些视频导致骚扰、诽谤或个人数据被滥用,上传到网上也可能构成违法行为。

What happens when the footage is posted online? Even if the filming itself was lawful, posting footage online can cross the line into illegality if it causes harassment, defamation or misuse of personal data, Ms Khoo said.

根据《防止骚扰法》,如果某人上传了能够识别个人身份的视频内容,并因此导致他人受到骚扰、惊吓或痛苦,该人可能需要承担法律责任。根据《电影法》,传播淫秽材料的人也可能需要承担法律责任。

Under POHA, a person may be liable if they post identifiable footage that causes someone “harassment, alarm or distress”, she said. Under the Films Act, a person may also be liable for distributing obscene materials.

Gloria James-Civetta 律师事务所的律师 Noelle Teoh 表示,法律并没有明确规定“只要某人不同意在公共场合被拍摄,就必须对其面部进行模糊处理”。

Ms Noelle Teoh, an associate lawyer at Gloria James-Civetta and Co, said no general rule requires a person's face to be blurred simply because they did not consent to being filmed in public. But where identification serves no purpose, particularly in sensitive situations or where children are involved, blurring may be a "sensible precaution".

但她指出:在某些敏感情况下(尤其是涉及儿童时),对面部进行模糊处理是一种“合理的预防措施”。

Publishing footage that identifies or allows others to identify the individual concerned may amount to doxxing in some cases, including where it is done with the intention of causing harassment, alarm, distress or humiliation, she said.

她进一步解释说:如果发布的视频中包含能够识别个人身份的信息,或者这些信息被用于骚扰、惊吓、伤害他人尊严的目的,那么这种行为可能构成“人肉搜索”(doxxing)。

But not every post containing identifying details amounts to doxxing.

不过,并非所有包含个人身份信息的帖子都属于人肉搜索行为。例如,如果有人记录了某人糟糕的驾驶行为并上传了视频(其中包含车辆信息及车牌号),这并不一定构成对驾驶员的人肉搜索行为(尤其是当驾驶员的身份未被公开的情况下)。

For example, someone who records a car being driven badly and posts the footage online showing the vehicle and its registration number would not necessarily be doxxing the driver, especially if the driver is not identified, she said. “The position may be different if additional information is published which identifies the driver and the circumstances indicate an intention to subject that person to harassment or humiliation,” she said.

“如果随后发布了能够识别驾驶员身份的额外信息,并且这些信息表明有人意图对该驾驶员进行骚扰或羞辱,那么情况就不同了。”她说。

How do smart glasses play into legal and privacy concerns?

智能眼镜如何影响法律与隐私问题?律师指出,智能眼镜的普及使得秘密录音行为更难被发现,人们可以更长时间地进行拍摄而不会被察觉。

Lawyers noted that the rise of smart glasses has made covert recording harder to detect, allowing people to film for longer periods without being noticed. Existing criminal laws here are broad enough to capture unlawful use of smart glasses and other wearable cameras, said Mr Wong.

黄先生表示,当地的现行刑法已经足够宽泛,足以惩处非法使用智能眼镜及其他可穿戴摄像设备的行为。

But he added that using such technology to evade detection or conceal an offence is a long-recognised aggravating factor, one that can make an offence more serious.

但他补充说,利用此类技术逃避监管或掩盖犯罪行为属于长期以来被认定为加重处罚情节的因素,这会使犯罪行为本身变得更加严重。

Ms Teoh agreed that the technology itself is not inherently unlawful. “Existing laws on matters such as voyeurism, harassment and data protection can apply regardless of the device used,” she said.

谭女士也认为,这项技术本身并不违法;她指出:“关于窥探他人隐私、骚扰他人以及数据保护等方面的现行法律,无论使用何种设备,都可以适用。”

She added that as wearable recording technology becomes more discreet and sophisticated, it remains to be seen whether laws, regulations or industry practices will evolve to address the privacy concerns it raises.

她进一步指出,随着可穿戴录音技术变得越来越隐蔽和先进,法律、法规或行业规范是否能够跟上技术发展的步伐、以解决由此引发的隐私问题,仍有待观察。

She cited Japan, where many mobile phones are designed with a shutter sound that cannot be muted, to deter covert photography Similarly, smart-glasses manufacturers have incorporated visible recording indicators. For example, Ray-Ban Meta glasses have an outward-facing capture light that activates when photographs or videos are being taken.

她以日本为例:许多手机的快门声无法被关闭,以此来防止秘密拍摄;同样,智能眼镜制造商也在产品上设置了明显的录音提示功能(例如,Ray-Ban Meta眼镜在拍摄照片或视频时会发出可见的光信号)。

She cited Japan, where many mobile phones are designed with a shutter sound that cannot be muted, to deter covert photography Similarly, smart-glasses manufacturers have incorporated visible recording indicators. For example, Ray-Ban Meta glasses have an outward-facing capture light that activates when photographs or videos are being taken.

“这些例子表明,应对新的录音技术的方式不一定仅限于立法,还可以通过产品设计、行业标准以及其他旨在提高用户周围人员对录音行为的警觉性的措施来实现。”如果有人在公共场合未经我同意就拍摄我,我该怎么办?黄先生建议,首先应向相关部门或现场的安全人员报告此事。

“These examples show that the response to new recording technology may not necessarily come only through legislation, but also through product design, industry standards and other safeguards intended to make recording more apparent to those around the user,” she said. What can I do if someone is filming me in public without my consent? Mr Wong said the first step is to report the matter to the authorities or security personnel on site.

他指出,被拍摄者并没有自动权利查看嫌疑人设备中的录音内容,嫌疑人也可以随时拒绝他人查看这些内容。

The person being filmed does not automatically have the right to "pry into the contents" of the suspect's recording device, he said, adding that the suspect can always refuse.

“然而,一旦当局介入,他们就有权力对嫌疑人进行调查,并没收其手机以进行数字取证分析。在这种情况下,嫌疑人如果拒绝配合或服从当局的要求,这些行为都可能被用作法庭上的证据。”他说。

“However, once the authorities step in, the authorities then have the powers to investigate and to seize the suspect's handphone for digital forensic examination. At that point in time, the suspect's refusal to cooperate or to comply can subsequently be used against him in court,” he said.

Teoh女士表示,为了自身安全,最好避免与嫌疑人发生肢体冲突或试图没收他们的设备。

Ms Teoh said it would be sensible to prioritise personal safety and avoid physically confronting the person or attempting to seize their device.

她建议,被拍摄的人应尽可能保留相关证据,例如事件发生的时间和地点、嫌疑人的特征描述,以及任何后续发布的截图或链接。她说,这些证据在报警或采取法律行动时可能会非常有用。

Where possible, the person being filmed should preserve evidence of what occurred, such as the time and location, a description of the suspect and screenshots or links to any subsequent online publication.

我能否根据《防止骚扰法案》(POHA)寻求保护? Wong先生解释说,要依据《防止骚扰法案》获得保护令,当事人必须证明自己确实遭受了骚扰,并且这种骚扰很可能会继续或再次发生;同时,法院也必须认为颁发保护令是公正合理的。

Such material may be relevant if they make a police report or take legal action, she said. Can I seek protection under POHA? To obtain a protection order under POHA, a person must show that harassment has occurred and is likely to continue or recur, and that the court considers it just and equitable to grant the order, said Mr Wong.

关于“在什么情况下拍摄他人可能构成骚扰”,Teoh女士指出法院会考虑以下因素:该行为的频率和持续时间、实施方式、具体环境,以及该行为对受害者可能造成的影响。

On when filming someone could amount to harassment under POHA, Ms Teoh said the court may consider factors including how often and how long the behaviour occurred, how it was carried out, the surrounding circumstances and its likely effects on the victim.

“因此,从法律角度来看,一个游客在拍照时无意中拍到另一个人,与某人故意反复跟踪并拍摄对方,这两者之间的法律性质是完全不同的。”她补充道。如果有害的视频被发布到网上,受到网络伤害的受害者也可以根据《在线安全(救济与问责)法案》向相关机构寻求帮助。

“So, the legal analysis may be quite different between a tourist inadvertently capturing another person in the background of a photograph and someone deliberately and repeatedly following a particular person while recording them.” In cases where harmful footage is posted online, victims of certain online harms may also seek relief through the Online Safety Commission under the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act.

根据该法案,如果符合条件,专员可以下令删除有害内容或限制相关账户的访问权限。

“So, the legal analysis may be quite different between a tourist inadvertently capturing another person in the background of a photograph and someone deliberately and repeatedly following a particular person while recording them.” In cases where harmful footage is posted online, victims of certain online harms may also seek relief through the Online Safety Commission under the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act.

有任何问题或需要解释的内容吗?请通过电子邮件联系我们:digitalnews。您的提问有可能成为我们网站上的新闻报道。

Under the Act, the commissioner may order harmful content to be taken down or access to an offending account restricted, where the requirements are met. Want an issue or topic explained? Email us at digitalnews Your question might become a story on our site.