Slashdot Mirror
Senate Bill Would Make Clandestine Video Taping Illegal
happyclam writes "CNN says that Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) is announcing a new combination bill that would do two things: (a) outlaw filming someone via hidden camera without their permission except in public places, and (b) provide for an adult-only domain such as .prn where all non-child-safe sites (pr0n, hate speech, etc.) would be relegated--the sites would have to give up their .com/.org/.net domains they own today. The first part makes sense, but the second clearly treads on free speech to some extent and will have a hard time going through, I imagine." I wonder if having an actor at the press conference is a new requirement for a bill to be introduced in congress.
So once all the porn and everything else that isn't wanted is relegated to the .prn domain, what then? Conveniently, DNS serves begin losing their registrations? And who decides what goes into the .prn category? Definitely a free speech issue..... and I won't even start on the video issue......
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
Yes, you can - you just have to have a sign out front informing any visitors that they're being watched. If they don't like it, they shouldn't enter.
This prevents you from legally being able to blackmail visitors with things that supposedly occured in privacy. Imagine a sex-toy shop - costomers want to feel safe knowing that they are not being taped as they enter and exit the store.
Really, I'm still worried about public places - I mean, I don't like the idea that "insert bank name here" knows every time I walk by (not into) one of their machines, which they could do with face recognition.
A long long time ago, in a internet far away..
TLD's were originally MEANT to separate entities on the internet. Then along came the big bad internic who decided what a great idea it would be to WHORE out TLD's to anyone willing to pay the price. Remember when.
.org was for non-profit
.com was for companies
.edu was for schools
.net was for network providers
It's not a free speech issue as much as it's a zoning issue. I don't mean DNS zones, i'm referring to the type of zoning cities do that dictate what kind of businesses go where. You have your industrial zones, your retail zones, your suburban zones, and yes, there are even zones for strip clubs. This kind of zoning doesn't infringe on anyone's right.
One more thing, the Internet is like our public roads, their use is a privilege, not a right. Anyone that abuses that right get's reported to their upstream provider and they disappear off the net faster than you can say "goatse.cx" I'm all for regulating these sites because Iâ(TM)m sick and tired of being tricked into a ZILLION popup ads from these fruity porn sites. Their methods have become more sinister over the years and they need to be put in check. Just because I accidentally or purposefully click a link, it's not a license to take over my computer with popup after popup.
It depends on the state. Here's a summary of voyeurism laws by state, as well as federal laws.
Not true, you don't need a sign if you are taping in your house, as long as it is not for "lewd and lascivious" purposes. Read the article.
Do you really think you are not being taped when you enter an adult shop? Why would it be any different than walking into a drugstore or convenience store, etc. Most stores have security cameras of some sort.
First of all, most of the people on this thread don't take into consideration the "lewd or lascivious purpose" clause. This bill would not make video surveillance in general illegal.
When the Communications Decency Act of 1996 was struck down, Justice O'Connor wrote a concurrance that suggested that if the law had been approached as a zoning ordinance, it could have been written to pass muster. In writing the opinion, she relied, in part, on a 1996 article by Larry Lessig.
The idea of using a PRN domain was probably motivated by that concurrance. Whether it would survive Supreme Court review is another matter. Justice O'Connor was only joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist.
Read the article again, or maybe for the first time:
"Lewd or lascivious purpose" sounds to be narrowly targeted enough.
You did read the article right? It does specifically target that. "to announce a bill that would make it illegal to film someone for a 'lewd or lascivious purpose' without that person's consent." I doubt many activists are going around making sex tapes about the tobacco industry.
"no more "hidden camera investigations" by legitimate journalists."
:-)
Sorry, from the CNN article:
'a bill that would make it illegal to film someone for a "lewd or lascivious purpose" without that person's consent.'
Usually you wouldn't have a nanny-cam for a lewd or lascivious purpose
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased