IF SOMEONE took a photo of you in a public place without getting your permission, would you ignore it and go on your way?

Or would you confront the person, demand to see the picture and ask for an apology?

Or even, like this woman, go to the police and file a magistrate's complaint, despite the man's denials and her failure to find any such picture?

In February, Miss Simone Erasmus was in an electronics store in Paya Lebar when she noticed a shop assistant snapping pictures of her with his handphone camera.

She and her boyfriend then confronted the man and demanded that he show them the pictures of her that he had allegedly taken.

They could not find any pictures, but complained to his manager and claimed they eventually got an apology from the man.

Taking pictures in public

It is generally not against the law to take photos of people in public.

According to the law, whether a person's modesty is insulted depends on the facts and the circumstances of the case, as well as the conduct of the person taking the photograph.

Mr Edmond Pereira, 59, a criminal lawyer and former district judge, told The New Paper that if a photo was taken of a fully-dressed woman in a public place, it is hard to argue that her modesty has been compromised, or that the person taking the photograph had any intention to insult her modesty.

The photographer in such a situation is not legally bound to show any of the photos to a woman who may have been photographed.

Nor is he obliged to delete any of the photos, even if the woman asks him to.

Mr Pereira said that only photos taken to sexually exploit a woman's image can amount to an insult to her modesty.

For example, if the photo was taken up a woman's skirt, or when she was in a state of undress, like in a changing room.

In such a situation, the woman should call the police. She should try to ensure that the suspect does not leave the scene. And she should wait for the police and leave it to them to deal with the suspect.

In this case, Miss Erasmus, 26, a writer for a publishing house, believed that it was wrong for the man to photograph her.

She claimed the shop assistant took a photo of her skirt on a weekday evening.

Miss Erasmus said she was in the shop with her research engineer boyfriend Daryl Lam, 28, and his aunt.

As they were shopping for a TV set, she said she noticed one of the shop assistants sitting on a stool about an arm's length away from her.

According to her, he was holding his phone in front of him with his arm extended, and it was aimed at her skirt.

She claimed she even heard the phone's clicking sound when photos were taken.

Miss Erasmus said she was wearing a long-sleeved blouse and a brown skirt which ended about 8cm above her knee.

She said that when she glared at him, the shop assistant made eye contact with her, and immediately walked away.

She told the shop assistant to delete the photos, but he said he did not take any.

She would not reveal the name of the shop and claimed she could not remember the exact date on which this happened.

Miss Erasmus said she was frightened and embarrassed, but left the shop with Mr Lam, who wanted to confront the shop assistant.

He later told The New Paper: 'Even if he took a normal photo of her, it is not right because he did not seek her permission.

'It's not illegal, but I don't think it's proper, because it was intruding into her privacy.'

A few minutes later, they said they returned to the shop and asked to inspect the shop assistant's phone. They did, but found only photos of the man's 4-year-old daughter.

They believe that he had deleted the picture by then.

She said she later filed a complaint with the electronics shop, but was informed that during the internal investigation conducted by the shop, the man had insisted he did not take any photos.

Miss Erasmus also made a police report, and on 23Feb, approached the Subordinate Courts and got a magistrate's order directing the police to investigate her complaint.

She did not show us copies of her police report or complaint to the magistrate because she claimed she had thrown them away.

She then went to the shop again, reviewed closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage of the incident and claimed it proved what she suspected.

She said she spoke to the man again, and after some more denials, he finally admitted to taking the picture, and gave her a written apology.

She said she was unable to show us the apology.

Did she tell the shop or the man that she had got a magistrate to direct the police to investigate her complaint?

She claimed that she did not.

And she later withdrew her police report.

As far as she was concerned, she said, the case was closed.

Learn from experience

However, she said she wanted to highlight her experience in the media so that other women might learn from her experience.

She also wrote about her experience on her blog, and said she received about 40 replies, mostly from other women who had similar experiences.

Some even called her for advice, she said, although, once again, she declined to provide details.

Miss Erasmus said she has read about instances of women being photographed on the MRT or in other public places.

She said: 'These women typically glare at the 'photographer' and walk away, but their photos may eventually get onto the Internet.

'Also for me, I initially reacted typically - I was ashamed and walked away.'

After her experience, Miss Erasmus said: 'Whenever a women feels that her modesty has been insulted, I feel the guy should be confronted, and his identity should be taken down.

'Of course, it's up to her if she wants to press charges.

'However, I would like to encourage it, because it would provide closure.'

This article was first published in The New Paper.