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.
other countries? Could still end up with exotic asian scat porn on .com or .org domains. The internet is not .USA.
.prn so sex.com becomes sex.com.prn would help. But still, this would be messy.
Perhaps automatically offerening free transfer
I think that is a bad tld. .adult would be better. This isnt DOS. If a good way to categorize this comes about, I'm for it. The problem is, even victoria's secret magazine is porn to a 14 year old boy from suburbia. But about videotaping... I should be allowed to tape my babysitter in my own house.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Free speech does not give you the right to trick someone or mis-represent yourself..
.prn part... but we need to Expand it.. FORCE businesses into .biz and .com schools into .edu and only groups and orginazations get .org while internet services providers are forced with .net
.com because it is a BUSINESS.
Granted hoteensluts.com is obvious whitehouse.com IS NOT and is there to only decieve and misrepresent in-order to trick people into their site.
I agree with the
Yes... slashdot will have to become a
it's about damn time someone suggested forcing TLD's to be used correctly.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
What about video taping babysitters to make sure they don't molest your children? Making it illegal for someone to video tape you in YOUR house who is NOT the owner, ok. Saying the owner can't do what he wants in his own house? I don't think so.
Who would be responsible for policing .com websites, to ensure that they remain adult-content free?
.prn?
.kids, .family or something domain name, that was guaranteed 'clean' from the start?
If someone posts a linke to goatse on a kiddie's chatboard, would that site be 'relegated' to
I wonder if they understand the scope of this problem; there are so many grey areas.
Would it be easier to set up a
Not surprised about this bill at all. You aren't allowed to audio tape someone without prior conscent, why would you be allowed to video tape someone...
.prn thing, I don't know why people are so against this. If it's porn send it there, it will make it easier for people to find the porn they need, and make it harder for kids to find it.
This does impact the nanny-cam issue. Far too many bad nannies will get away with beating kids because of this bill if it passes.
As far as the
Why is it that people always hear what I say, and not what I mean?
The second to the last paragraph of the article states that the law applies to recordings made for lewd and lascivious purposes. I think that secretly videotaping babysitters for the purpose of monitoring their performance doesn't fall into that category.
An exclusion for public places would seem to permit workplace monitoring.
Does this new bill mean (if it were in the US) it would have to be xenu.prn?
As the Usenet thread points out, does this mean the Democratic Underground would have to move to democraticunderground.prn?
What's ICANN got to say about all this, since (I thought) they turned down .sex, .xxx, and .porn?
(Nevermind, scratch that last part.. I couldn't care less about what ICANN has to say about this.)
This seems to me to be one-upping the legislation that tries to redefine SMTP . Yikes.
How do you define porn? In the UK, there are national newspapers with topless women on page 3. This isn't considered porn in the UK, no-one would play any attention to a 15 year old buying 'The Sun'. I suspect that in the US, it not be the same.
She was there because she played someone named Susan Wilson referenced in the article in a TV-lifetime movie about this ladies problems with video voyeurism.... most likely the reason they had her there instead is because the real Susan Wilson is probably not as good looking... and they are using Angie Harmon's good looks to assist in swaying the emotions of people into accepting this bill further. If they were to have had some ugly lady bitching about being watched on camera - it would not carry as much weight as if some hottie was doing the bitching. This just goes to show, that even still, politics is acting for ugly people - its the same BS emotional manipulation as the hollywood crap. Just makes me sick.
(a) outlaw filming someone via hidden camera without their permission except in public places, ... The first part makes sense
This is handled at State level just fine already. Even the congresscritter mentioned on the radio that something like 40+ States do not have the law she proposed.
Said another way, something less than 10 States find a need for a law like this, they were perfectly capable of passing these laws without any help from the busybody DC crowd. For example, in TN I can record (audio, video, both) any conversation that I am party to and do not have to inform the other parties, i.e., one party concent. In Maryland, all parties to the conversation need to be informed (unless there is a warrant) that a conversation is being recorded. This proposal is just a federal extension of the same theme.
Apparently, in some States, one person can legally train a camera through the open window of another person's home. In others you can not. Sounds fair enough to me. I close the shades when I do not want others to see what is in my apartment and do not need a law to alleviate me of my responsibility.
If someone enters my place and plants a camera, I believe that every State has a dozen or so laws that the perpetrator can be charged with (breaking and entry, illegal entry, etc), that is if the cops bother to stop writing speeding tickets long enough to catch the criminal. Don't forget all of the civil charges.
Now, since States can and do pass laws like this one, what "makes sense" about the feds passing it for the whole country?
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Why don't they just legislate .kids or .notpron, and simply permit no conent unsuitable for children on sites with that domain. Then, if one were to want to ensure that kids don't see anything unsuitable ban them from going to all other domains. Corporations catering to kids and the vulnerable would most certainly jump on board (as they do not have to rid themselves of their old domains) and I am sure google.kids would be easy to get online. Enforcement is dead easy. Why do the guys coming up with this stuff think in such convoluted ways?
What we need to do is pass a law that permits only one law to be introduced per bill. What the heck does an adults-only domain have to do with videotaping others without their consent? (Besides the obvious, of course.) Might as well add on a tax increase while we're at it.
RTFA: "Under the bill, any person who uses a camera or similar recording device to record another individual either for a lewd or lascivious purpose without that person's consent is in violation of the law."
Keeping an eye on your babysitter is not lewd or lascivious (well, it could be, but you know what I mean). Security cameras are not for lewd or lascivious purpose.
Nice sensationalism there, authors.
Call it .prn, .xxx, or whatever, it just won't work.
.com domain. Not fair? Oops.
.prn domain, or punish you in however the law would say. Some organizations that want their massage to be heard won't categorize themselves that way, if just because that means they are limiting their audience.
.prn where little Johnny will never find it.
.prn domain. It is a quick attempt to segregate all the "bad" of the Internet into one neat package. It would be like saying, "Let's have a 'no-crack' zone on the Internet" where hackers/crackers don't go, and where we can have our family-fun websites and dance with posies.
You have a site that has pictures that you think people would give you money for. The more viewers, the more money for you. Would you move your website to a domain that can be easily globally blocked from websurfers?
Let's say that you do. Now, some of your competition with the exact same pictures is now racking in money with a
Should a pictoral of a breast exam go under breastexam.prn? Should a gynocological exam or a sexual guide for intimacy go under sexuality.prn? At one swipe, all material that seems too racy would be mandated to be under a new url, which can then be easily banned.
While some things can easily be branded as porn, some others may not. Who do you want making those decisions, the web-filter software designers? Congress? White middle-aged Christians from the South?
Imagine that you have a viewpoint on society. You use the internet to tell as many people about a "secret conspiracy" that you think is valid. Now, the law can be used by those that you think are conspiring against you to place you in a
Think that might not happen?
Imagine that the "secret conspiracy" is that Pat Robertson is using church-related "tax-exempt" monies to fund political action committees. You publish it on a web-site, and now some people consider you "hate-speech" against Christians.
Perhaps the "secret conspiracy" is Scientology. You all ought to know what I mean by that. Now xenu.net can be hate speech, and placed in a
Now, what if that the "secret conspiracy" is the Jews trying to take over the world (I don't believe that, but follow me). Would you set up your message to be banned by the very powers that "control" the Internet? Not hardly. You'd place it anywhere else, and move it around until the law is repealed.
There is too much room for governmental, private, and public-action committees to arbitraily censor material under a
Probably not going to happen.
Slashdot would need the .prn extension as well, unless it started censoring sexually explicit posts and posts characterized as "hate speech".
The goatse guy for president. Win one for the gaper!
Step 1: relegate all "adult" materials to .prn .prn sites
Step 2: pressure schools, libraries, and ISP's (in that order; divide and conquer) to block access to
It's a familar strategy. Does anybody remember X-rated commercial movies? By putting a label on serious, but controversial, movies, regulators painted a target on them. Pretty soon, no theater chain or studio wanted to be assoicated with X-rated movies, which were idenfified with pornography in the public mind. Result: de facto censorship, but nobody has to take the blame. The ".prn" name is a dead giveaway.
That's fine, AT THAT LEVEL OF GRANULARITY. It doesn't reflect content. It reflects broad enough categories that free speech isn't an issue, it's more of a tax category issue than anything else. And I'd have no problem if that scheme was stuck to. It's the step beyond that's proposed here that's the problem.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Ways around that are to petition your HOA for a rule change, or move somewhere else. I may be reading too much in your comment but you seem to be willing to have your HOA curtail what you can do on your own property, but not the federal gov't.
The flip side of your argument is that someone who films house guests using the shower could say "I was only trying to protect my property from criminals."
Here is a rant from a woman who stayed at a friends house, and later found that he was secretly videotaping all his female guests.
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
This is just another example of poorly thought out bill with a barrel of pork tacked on for good measure. At points it's too narrow to actually suceed in what it attempts, and at others it's too ambiguous or far reaching.
.prn part is a piggyback bill. It's clearly tacked on to this because the videotape business is (on the surface) quite sensible. In principle, I don't have a problem with having a separate TLD for adult sites (it's far from censorship, and having TLDs mean something in general is a Good Thing), but it has all kinds of problems with praticality. For example, who determines if a site is pornography/hate speech? Lots of "ratings" systems have been tried and are not sucessful, why would TLDs be different? Why .prn? Hate sites are not pornography. Why not .adult? They also don't seem to recognize that the Internet is international. What good does it do to apply this to US sites when sites in the rest of the world can do whatever they want? That doesn't protect anyone. It's clear that noone who had input on the bill had any real technical knowledge of how the Internet works.
In principle, both ideas have merit. It is already illegal to secretly record audio without a warrant (i.e. bugging or wiretapping). It makes sense for the same rules that apply to audio apply to images and video as well. But, in this bill, it is only illegal if it is for a "lewd or lascivious purpose." What about videotapes that violate your privacy in non-lewd ways? Shouldn't those be illegal too? And it doesn't apply in public places! What about public restrooms? What about "upskirts"? Those are two things they specifically want to stop, and it's not clear at all if those are covered.
Fortunately, this law would not prevent, for example, taping of your babysitter to be sure s/he's not beating your kids (it's not a lewd purpose).
The
This is clearly NOT a privacy bill at all, but simply a porn/speech regulation bill. OK ideas drafted into lousy legislation.
... "Give me a woman who loves beer and I will conquer the w
As someone previously stated, this is just like zoning laws in cities and towns. You know, a residential area, commerce area, etc. This is the same thing. It's long overdue. All individuals should be put in their own domain, all companies under .com, all educational sites on .edu, etc. Makes total sense.
.prn domain would only be required in the United States obviously. There is no way the United States could impose this domain on sites in other countries, unless there is some kind of international treaty.
.gov equivalent?) and makes the internet better in the long run.
The
This isn't regulating free speech. There is no manditory banning of the porn sites by the United States. This is just organizing these web sites in an domain that parents/schools/libraries/companies CAN ban if they so choose. It's almost like putting all of the adult magazines on a separate shelf behind the store counter so teenagers can't buy them. Same difference if you ask me. It eliminates confusion (ever go to www.whitehouse.com instead of its
The videotaping part is long overdue. It would only apply if someone wasn't notified that they were being videotaped or didn't give their consent.
You can bet that a blanket ban on covert filming is going to be actually aimed at threatening the reporters and activists who use hidden cameras to expose the lies and hidden secrets of abusive and corrupt organizations. Remember, these sort of abusive and corrupt organizations will agressively use any sort of official secrecy to keep information from the public. (Remember how Tobacco companies even managed to use Attorney-Client privelege to hide scientific research? Or how the chemical industry has tried to use "national security" concerns to remove public records of toxic sites?)
The "public space" exemption is too narrow as a lot of the current space used generally by the public is actually held in private hands. Furthermore, the public has a right to know a lot about what happens in supposedly "private" places that actually produce products for public consumption.
We should not be naive here. Angie Harmon and concern about voyeurism is not what laws like this are really about. If we want to ban just voyeuristic films of private citizens in various states of undress, then a law should be written that narrowly targets that.
no more "hidden camera investigations" by legitimate journalists.
no "nanny cam" to catch the nanny abusing your child or stealing your stuff.
the only people allowed to use hidden cameras will be law enforcement/entrapment agencies.
who decides what is adult? (not her I hope).
the democratic party should be ashamed to have a legislator who would sponsor this kind of crap in their ranks.
The difference between Theory and Practice is greater in Practice than in Theory.
However, who is going to determine whose hate speech will be required to use the ".prn" domain? Hate is not absolute, it is very subjective to the observer and comes and goes with societal fashion. Personally, I think "Hate Speech" deserves the most protection possible and should not be regulated by Government. Its every American's right not to like people for irrational reasons and be able to shout it at the top of their lungs. I like it when I hear hate speech because it makes it easier to determine the folks I want to avoid.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Reading the comments it seems many are reading a different press release than the official one. Several people have raised the question about this preventing the hidden camera recording of nannies, babysitters, and other caregivers to ferret out possibly abuse. Others have raised the question of whether this will affect $retail-store survelliance cameras intended for the prevention of theft. The bill specifically mentions hidden camera taping of "lewd or lacivious acts" as those which would be targetted.
.prn issue to it. That is a real violation of speech and its presence dilutes the video voyourism aspects. Sadly, the bill should be divided or tossed out (on the basis of violation of free speech, if naught else) because of it. That portion is entirely unenforcable. The true tragedy is that supporters of the first half will be vilified if they do not support the second part and their voice of support on the first part will be silenced.
Would this affect $retail-location hidden cameras in open places (not dressing rooms or bathrooms)? No. There is no intent to capture lewd or lacivious acts and someone screwing in the aisles of the store doesn't count. It would, however, make it illegal to put up a camera in a dressing room or bath room to capture someonein an undressed state when they are not intending to be seen in an expectation of privacy. It would also prevent cameras on the floor pointed up to catch a peek under women's skirts (or men's kilts) as they walked over the camera (or similarly would prevent someone from walking around with a camera in a low slung bag for the same purpose), whether or not something like that is used now.
Would this affect a hidden camera placed in one's own home for the purpose of capturing the potentially abusive activities of a nanny, babysitter, or other care-giver? No. As with the store surveliance, those video feeds are not lewd or lacivious or intended to give a sexual thrill. There is no intent to capture the individual in a candid -undressed- or sexually compromising position. However, if you put a hidden camera in the bathroom, in the bedroom of your roommate (without his/her permission), or secretly in the bedroom window of your neighbor, that wouldn't be allowed.
Would a retail store have to have a notice about the possibility you might be taped by their survellience camera? I think in California they do have to have some notice about it, I seem to remember seeing such notices. Heck, the notice alone can be enough to deter a lot of casual theft whether the cameras exist or not (I knew a retailer who set up a dummy camera prominantly in her shop and had a corosponding drop in theft... same too for someone posting a sign about hidden cameras though there were none).
In my opinion, perhaps caregivers, too, should be given notice they -may- be video taped for quality control (kinda like the recordings when you call for customer service, "this call may be recorded..."). Couldn't that make $care-giver a bit more cautious in his/her job? Saying you -may- tape someone doesn't mean you -will- or will all the time.
The real said part about this bill is the fact they tried to tie the
Sure, a .xxx (which may be actually a better one than .prn in my opinion) would not cover international sites, but would in an ideal situation, would it hinder free speech? The .edu name or the .gov name never hinders free speech, only specific limits on the domain name holders are enforced.
It is true that a big brother type arrangement could be set up as a result, but IDEALLY, a separate tld for porn sites would not only aid in preventing access by those who don't desire their children to access such sites, but it would also aid in those who WANT to find such websites (as they would always end in .xxx or .prn or whatever you want the tld to be.)
The only logistical problems I figured out with such a setup (I had a plan very similar in my own head for a while) would possibly be tied with extra fees that people would have to pay to ensure that all American adult-only sites are within the correct domain.
In *MY* opinion, I'm all in support of an unrestricted domain name that is specifically for porn sites (provided that such an law is not abused or extended so conservatively to any site that says a curse word). But I'm not so fond of having to pay extra fees to the government in order for them to make sure that my site is not pornographic. (And the red tape if for any reason they decide that one phrase on my site IS).
So in summary, the .prn domain is both a godsend and another influence of big brother. As long as no law could be passed to mandate anything that APPEARED on it. (Forcing sites to be on it is one thing, using it to curtail free speech by subsequently shutting down or limiting such sites is another).
It's like socialism. It looks good on paper, but there's no chance of it working out well in real life. In a world without corruption, sure. But it's simply not a feasible idea without having the POTENTIAL of abusing it.
Yes, the porno thing is bad, and there's no way it could possibly pass - the Internet, like it or not, is private domain now, just like the cable and rail network, and for better or for worse, that's how it should be. This bill would be in essence either nationalize/monopolize Verisign and the other .com operators, or would force them to change their practices for purposes of limiting free speech, instead of saving lives. (which is what most regulations are for)
And since when did the US Federal Government have the ability to create new TLDs?
But what about the first part of this? No videotaping someone without their consent except on public property? First, we have to deal with the thorny issue of public property. Is someone standing on a rooftop in public? Or in a private, but open-access, park? What if you film someone entering a building, going from public to private space?
Second of all, don't we have these inconvenient little judicial and political divisions called STATES that typically handle this? And handle it they do, or should; there are many states that ban audiotape without permission, and I must assume that there are at least some that ban videotape without permission, or are pondering the idea. This is no realm for the Federal government to get involved; it's not an interstate crime to simply tape someone.
Third of all, as others have so astutely pointed out, this bill could be - and would be - used to ban hidden camera expose`s. Food Lion? Fraudulent auto repairmen? Abusive nursing home employees?
And fourth of all... what if the private property the taping is taking place on is your OWN? Would it be legal to invite someone into your house and tape them without their knowledge? If not, this would singlehandedly kill the entire babysitter videotaping movement.
Much like most laws, this one is worthless and shouldn't be given a second glance.
That said, should it be legal or illegal to film someone from your home, through their window, into their home? That should be up to the states to decide, but in my personal opinion, that's why God invented curtains and blinds. Privacy is a right, but it cannot be an assumed right. You can't go out into a low-fenced backyard naked and assume you have a right not to be stared at or taped. Like all rights it requires vigilance. Put up curtains and a taller fence. And if the guy goes through more extraordinary measures to tape you, sue him for *stalking*.
Same goes for if someone plants a camera in your home. First, sue for trespass. If a landlord, sue for breach of contract and trespass. And then sue for stalking.
The unfortunate thing is, almost all state laws that prohibit audiotaping without permission don't count for videotape. Plant a hidden camera in a woman's bedroom and, as long as it doesn't have a microphone, you have done virtually nothing illegal. (except the possible breaking and entering and trespass; hence why I mentioned the landlord) Such a practice would also be violating my comment on privacy; your property is your castle, and much as most state self defense laws don't require you to retreat if on your own property, nor should you have to be vigilant about privacy from within your own property.
I find it interesting explicit exceptions are made for security cameras, such as those in a department store dressing room. I guess it's OK if the person recording without permission is a corporation. But, then again, perhaps this applies to my above argument as to whether or not it would be legal to secretly videotape babysitters - maybe the exception applies to that as well.
That's enough rambling for now.
Disclaimer: A good portion of this post is based on the Slashdot synopsis of the story; I see no mention of 'public property' anywhere in the senator's press release.
"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" -Dostoevsky