I am interested in the answer in general, but also particularly interested in how Western Australia’s Public Transport Authority Regulations 2003 section 13 would apply:
A person who acts in such a way as to cause a nuisance or annoyance to persons in or on a conveyance or a facility commits an offence.
According to an article by Australia’s national broadcaster, Backyard skinny-dippers lack effective laws to keep peeping drones at bay:
Ms Hyatt had returned home last week from an evening gym session, undressed and jumped into her secluded backyard pool.
She thought she was "skinny-dipping" in private. Within minutes, though, a small camera-mounted quadcopter drone was hovering close overhead.
Ms Hyatt is certain it was watching her …
…
If it happens again she can't prove it is the same drone — as would be needed to apply nuisance, harassment and stalking laws — nor the intentions of the operator.
…
With no regulatory agency, no tort of privacy, (nearly) no nuisance and inapplicable harassment and stalking laws, there isn't much law when it comes to peeping Toms using drones around our homes and private spaces.
Although this article mainly discusses drones, it is clear that it is really about recording using drones. As far as I can tell, the legal analysis should also apply to other forms of recording (or at least other forms of recording that are less intrusive than drones). This makes it sound like the answer is (nearly) “no”, at least in Australia.
But a Western Australian PTA Transit Officer (these officers have similar powers to police on public transport, so they surely receive legal training) told me the answer is “yes”.
