Unintentional, Damage-free Photographing of Others Not Illegal

[webfact]

 

BANGKOK (TNA) – The Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) is aimed at protecting rights and liberty and does not prohibit the unintentional and damage-free photographing of others, said Chaiwut Tanakamanusorn, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society.

 

He said that PDPA was passed to prevent the abuse of personal data because business organizations collected the data of clients when the latter did transactions or bought products online.

 

Keep up to date with all things Thailand - Join our daily ASEAN NOW Thailand Newsletter - Click to subscribe

 

The stored data included names, addresses, phone numbers and medical treatment records. Without consent from people concerned, their personal data could not be used. If the unauthorized use of personal data caused damage, abusers would be liable to a jail term of one year and a fine of up to 1 million baht, Mr Chaiwut said.

 

Full story: https://tna.mcot.net/english-news-953097

 

-- © Copyright Thai News Agency 2022-06-03

 

- Cigna offers a range of visa-compliant plans that meet the minimum requirement of medical treatment, including COVID-19, up to THB 3m. For more information on all expat health insurance plans click here.

 

Easiest way to own a car in Thailand - click here to find out more!

 

[RandiRona]

What harm an upskirt pictures can cause? You really cant identify someone from that pictures...there is everything but face there....

Make a law which is measurable not subject to different interpretations.

Either photography in public places is legal or illegal....what the f is "Damage-Free Photography".

 

 

[Mitkof Island]

ZZZZZZZZZZZ ! I have very rarely had any issues with the Thais over the years. When taking a photo I often ask when I am taking a street scene picture never. A video the same I plan to ignore this BS!

[ezzra]

Glad to see that all the ills, hassles, and problems of this country have been all worked out now to be concern with this issue, either that, of some people has way too much free time on their hands...

[DezLez]

And who will determine if a photo is "damage free" in this land of defamation litigation?

[bluemoon58]

Unintentional, Damage-free Photographing of Others Not Illegal

 

What the flock is that supposed to mean...???

 

[spidermike007]

Thailand, being such an advanced nation, has a Minister of Digital Economy and Society. Huh? Do any other countries have someone in this post? Or do they have so much extra money in the budget, that there is plenty to go around? How do they make a determination as to what images are damaging or not? This seems so arbitrary and subjective. 

[Resident Alien]

"If others were photographed or their pictures were posted unintentionally without any damage caused, no one would be considered as doing wrong"

 

What about those Youtube channels filming in public places?

Maybe there are some people who do not want to be filmed, when just enjoying some (nightlife) entertainment.

[Excel]

And who is going to be the arbiter of whether or not the photo was damage free ?  Thailand's incorruptible RTP, honest lawyers and unbiased judges ? or simply whether it makes any headlines or not ?

[wombat]

So just to be clear...if my main squeeze sees me in a vlog youtube with my terac de joure and performs that quaint ritual known as cut cut throw to ducks the abuser will be jailed?

[LivinLOS]

3 hours ago, Mitkof Island said:

ZZZZZZZZZZZ ! I have very rarely had any issues with the Thais over the years. When taking a photo I often ask when I am taking a street scene picture never. A video the same I plan to ignore this BS!

You seem to miss the point entirely... The issue here is not street photography. 

Now taking a photo of someones bad parking, bad driving, aggressive behavior etc can be considered criminal (if they have more power and status than you). 

[LivinLOS]

45 minutes ago, Excel said:

And who is going to be the arbiter of whether or not the photo was damage free ?  Thailand's incorruptible RTP, honest lawyers and unbiased judges ? or simply whether it makes any headlines or not ?

The person who feels damaged. 

This extends Thailands defamation laws to images and video. 

[Excel]

10 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

The person who feels damaged. 

This extends Thailands defamation laws to images and video. 

I said the arbiter, not the accuser or do you think the accuser can seek damages or have people convicted without recourse to anything or anybody ?

[BTB1977]

If your not doing anything wrong what's the problem.  Can't believe all the barstool bunters afraid of their face being photographed or filmed. . What are they hiding from? If your doing something wrong you deserve to be caught. 55555

[Purdey]

As some posters mentioned, photographing someone doing something illegal could lead to a defamation suit. I imagine taking a picture of a policeman riding his motorcycle on the pavement (which they never do of course) could lead to a case.  In Europe it seems to focus on using personal data inappropriately is the main benefit to consumers. If you have inadvertently clicked on a site which shows ladies and gentlemen involved in congress, then later received hundreds of ads for g-strings and dild*s then you might see the laws advantages.

[vandeventer]

2 hours ago, Resident Alien said:

"If others were photographed or their pictures were posted unintentionally without any damage caused, no one would be considered as doing wrong"

 

What about those Youtube channels filming in public places?

Maybe there are some people who do not want to be filmed, when just enjoying some (nightlife) entertainment.

Thailand does not have a first amendment to the American constitution. It would be nice to know what they have as far as freedom goes.

[mikeymike100]

In the "Real world" Anyone can take pictures or video of anything that is in public view.

There are numerous videos on You Tube of people videoing police stations and the like to see what happens, some are quite entertaining.

Why in Thailand they have to use such convoluted language is quite bizarre.

[hotchilli]

3 hours ago, DezLez said:

And who will determine if a photo is "damage free" in this land of defamation litigation?

The person who was photographed is the owner of their image, if they don't want it shared then they have every right to have it deleted.?

[NativeBob]

3 hours ago, bluemoon58 said:

Unintentional, Damage-free Photographing of Others Not Illegal

 

What the flock is that supposed to mean...???

 

it is "google translate" and has no meaning at all. 

[NativeBob]

3 hours ago, Resident Alien said:

"If others were photographed or their pictures were posted unintentionally without any damage caused, no one would be considered as doing wrong"

 

What about those Youtube channels filming in public places?

Maybe there are some people who do not want to be filmed, when just enjoying some (nightlife) entertainment.

Good point. Sick of those "youtubers" spawning around with their cameras shooting everything they consider worthy. we went to wat Arun recently and saw dozens of those freaks with GoPros and alike.

Saying that I consider its a new world now: cameras are everywhere and you can only hide from 'em by wearing burka or staying home with windows shut. Shades, mask and a hat will do as well.

[LivinLOS]

3 hours ago, Excel said:

I said the arbiter, not the accuser or do you think the accuser can seek damages or have people convicted without recourse to anything or anybody ?

The arbiter will ultimately be a judge and we know how consistent they are here.. 

[LivinLOS]

3 hours ago, BTB1977 said:

If your not doing anything wrong what's the problem. 

The problem is.. Those who do wrong are now shielded.. 

Someone is rude, drives like an ass, parks over multiple disabled spaces etc ?? Upload that proof to FB and suddenly they are 'reputationally damaged'..

[sansaihashbars]

The Personal Data Protection Act is fantastic in my opinion!  However, I am still waiting to hear who pushed for and signed off on the 2 year postponement of the PDPA? Why did they postponed it and who benefited from this postponement?

[LivinLOS]

1 hour ago, hotchilli said:

The person who was photographed is the owner of their image, if they don't want it shared then they have every right to have it deleted.?

That is not the case in public places.. You dont own the right to control what happens to photos taken in public. 

Hence paparazzi.. 

[wealthychef]

So is it legal to video police officers taking a bribe if they don't wish to be filmed and it would end their careers?  

 

[LukKrueng]

9 hours ago, RandiRona said:

Make a law which is measurable not subject to different interpretations

And what will lawyers do then?

[zzaa09]

10 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Thailand, being such an advanced nation, has a Minister of Digital Economy and Society. Huh? Do any other countries have someone in this post? Or do they have so much extra money in the budget, that there is plenty to go around? How do they make a determination as to what images are damaging or not? This seems so arbitrary and subjective. 

Whatever the current fashion might be and more important as to who profits and benefits.

Not terribly difficult to figure out the Thainess motives toward any such movements. 

[LivinLOS]

4 hours ago, wealthychef said:

So is it legal to video police officers taking a bribe if they don't wish to be filmed and it would end their careers?  

 

and here we get to the 'reputational damage' part of the problem.. 

Theres no allowance for the behavior being factual, the same as defamation also has no relevance to the statement being true or not. 

Only is it damaging to the party recorded. 

[wealthychef]

2 hours ago, LivinLOS said:

and here we get to the 'reputational damage' part of the problem.. 

Theres no allowance for the behavior being factual, the same as defamation also has no relevance to the statement being true or not. 

Only is it damaging to the party recorded. 

this is why we in America believe that the right to free speech is more important than the right of public figures to not be "defamed."  America does a lot of things wrong and the truth is complicated but clearly muzzling public photography only benefits the powerful.  

[daejung]

18 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Thailand, being such an advanced nation, has a Minister of Digital Economy and Society. Huh? Do any other countries have someone in this post?

We have one in France 555

https://www.gouvernement.fr/le-secretariat-d-etat-charge-du-numerique