And also, some people could suffer real damages. Imagine if someone is lying to their wife about what they do on the weekend or about who they've gone to a conference with. Or imagine if someone has found themselves with dangerous enemies who discover where they go, what they do and with whom.
At the moment, these things are not the problem of the person taking the video
Since you're allergic to peanuts that means everybody should be banned from eating peanuts and we should stop growing them, right?
While directly providing said stalker with information seems like a harmful, and likely prosecutable behavior, the indirect providing of information is not a burden the general public should bear for another parties already illegal actions.
No. It means you get a restraining order if there's a threat and contact the police the moment they violate it. We already have laws for that type of thing.
Preventing anyone ever possibly taking pictures where you could be in the background is not the answer.
footy|5 months ago
According to some of the people here that would mean she had no right to participate in a regular activity.
pixl97|5 months ago
While directly providing said stalker with information seems like a harmful, and likely prosecutable behavior, the indirect providing of information is not a burden the general public should bear for another parties already illegal actions.
crazygringo|5 months ago
Preventing anyone ever possibly taking pictures where you could be in the background is not the answer.