Ugh - that doctor... pure evil. Glad he killed himself. I hope the class-action participants get every last dime of his estate.

Well, someone can do those things in public and not be photographed.

The fact that when out in public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy is mind-numbingly awful?

You are 100% completely wrong. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in public bathrooms and changing rooms (and there are laws preventing the taking photos of people in those spaces) - there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on a train.

Taking a photo of someone in public is not, it and of itself, harassment. If it causes you mental harm, then don't ever go out in public.

You said that what he photographed was not in plain sight unless he was laying on the ground... He was not laying on the ground, and what he photographed was in plain sight. In other news, you're an idiot who can't even understand what you yourself said. So go back to trying to make yourself feel good by trying to…

..and to be clear, the only troll here is the author of this completely misleading story and headline.

You mean not in the mood for being called out on your ignorance..

Providing legal counsel / representation to an accused party is not the same thing as morally defending what they did. If you do ever commit a crime (either knowingly or inadvertently) - and are busted for it, would you think that any lawyer who would represent you is morally reprehensible? Would you simply forgo…

So, what is it you claim that I am not comprehending? The fact that he was not laying on the ground, face up, with these women standing over him? This entire story is flat-out trolling.

"You shouldn't be taking pictures of people with their breast out without their permission, regardless. They are performing a legal act in public which requires a degree of nudity. " - and taking a photo of them is also a legal act. If you don't want your photo taken with your breast out, doing it in public is not the…

..and what I realize is the the author is being completely misleading with this story and its completely inaccurate headline - unfortunately, most people here don't realize that.

You are a fucking idiot.

It is relative to anyone in the vicinity, this person included.

"In plain sight" is not person-specific (in regards to who can or cannot see whatever the subject is), it is more of an absolute (if something is easily viewable by someone in public, then it is in plain sight). So, what you are arguing is that what makes this an offense* is that he was standing up. That's ridiculous.…

"..he was holding the phone down by his waist. Does anyone take pictures like that? " - Yes, it is a very common thing, actually. Perhaps you are not all that familiar with the world of photography, but yes - people do that.

Yup - just giving you some info the author intentionally left out..

Or think of someone sitting across from you, whose eyes are at the same level as a standing person's waist - who can then see up your skirt.

"..you can't have super-harsh penalties for the entry-level offenses because those are often highly subjective." - exactly why vigilante "justice" and beating the shit out of someone who is not breaking any law simply because they offend you is unacceptable, and will land you in court and possibly jail. Also - he…

He was standing on the train. He was taking photos of what was in plain sight.