Cellphone snaps still no bum deal for gym pervs

Melody Brandon WEEKEND POST REPORTER brandonm@avusa.co.za

STANDING in the shopping line waiting to pay, the grainy, out-of-focus snapshot of a celebrity‘s derriere on a magazine cover catches your eye. And, while you might chuckle at the hapless star‘s cellulite dimples, the truth is you are not safe from your own less-than-favourable picture being published – not even if you‘re at the gym.

As technology develops at a rapid pace, South African laws around cellphone use for Internet publishing lag behind other countries.

“There‘s no specific police unit that deals with these types of cases,” says Eastern Cape police spokesman Director Marinda Mills.

Planet Fitness and Virgin Active have posted warnings in their change rooms prohibiting the use of camera phones in their facilities.

With a new Planet Fitness gym opening in Port Elizabeth‘s new shopping complex Moffett on Main at the end of this month, spokesman Ileen de Boer said it was important to warn clients to beware.

“We decided to post signs in the change rooms prohibiting the use of camera phones as a pre-emptive measure,” she explained.

Virgin Active has also put up warning signs, reading: “No paparazzi in change rooms, we‘d like to ask those members with cellphones. We are incredibly mindful of people‘s right to privacy.”

Virgin Active South Africa operations chief Rory Sweetlove says: “In general, people are respectful of others‘ right to privacy. The majority of clients are there to train and not to take photos in the change rooms.

“Over the years, we‘ve had minimal reported cases.

“On the rare occasion that we‘ve had a reported incident, we have placed a notice to discourage this in that particular change room.”

However, if your picture does make its way to a naughty dot com, what do you do?

Paul Jacobson, a New Media lawyer in Johannesburg, said options were limited: “According to the Electronic Communications Act of 2002, you can issue a take-down notice to the Internet service provider hosting the site.”

One would not be able to sue the service provider either. “(They) are in a Catch-22. They cannot be held legally liable for what is posted on their sites if they are not aware of the activity on them. At the same time, they cannot police everything put on sites and would be held liable for content if they did. The best they can do is take down the content once the complaint has been laid.”

Jacobson said one would be able to take civil action, which could be a long process, and by then “the damage would already have been done”.

Ramon Thomas, an Eastern Cape online behaviour expert, said while the Electronic Communications Act provided for “cyber-detectives”, the government had yet to form a policing unit to deal with cyber-crimes.

Thomas agreed that, by the time one had fought a civil case, lawyers‘ fees would outweigh the claim.

However, gyms‘ warning clients was a step in the right direction. “If the police prove to be ineffective, businesses have no choice,” he said.

News