Adult mobile chat without reg
Taking general photographs without consent is one thing, but zooming in to snap a person's defence.
According to s.91L, the mere act of taking sexualised close-ups of a person's private parts without their consent is sufficient.
NSW did it at the end of 2008, presumably remaining states will follow ASAP.
Every time you enter private land, you do so with the common law understanding that you consent to any requirements the property's owner may impose upon you.
Even management admitted they were powerless to stop people from photographing things outside.
What if you take photos of a private space, publish them, and are then contacted (threatened?
Heck, even to take such photos is in breach of s.91L(6)!
So if a subject is parading around naked in clear public view, then they can hardly claim their privacy was violated if someone took their picture.
(See also discussed below…) BTW if the photographs are indecent enough, then even if they were taken with consent then they still may run afoul of the National Classification Scheme, should they be published online or in a magazine.
For a similarly detailed overview in an Australian context, you may also wish to refer to Caslon Analytics note on Unauthorised Photographs, along with this Australian Arts Law Centre , then photographers risked being charged with Offensive Behaviour under Section 21G NSW Summary Offences Act 1988.
Section 21G was however repealed at the end of 2008.