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
This reminds me of the recent story of libraries filtering adult content (or not, as the case may be). How does one really determine if something belongs as a .prn versus a .org?
.prn automagically? What if I run a site on breast cancer? Am I automatically .org?
If I show pictures of breasts, am I
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.
It depends on the state. Here's a summary of voyeurism laws by state, as well as federal laws.
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
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.
They'll get my .net when they pry it from my cold, dead DNS record.
.com, and a .org. Once I get an .edu, a .gov and a .mil,
C-X C-S
I also have a
I'll have collected the whole set!
Then they will all combine to form Voltron, and I'll rule the world!!
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.
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.
You know who used to have that job? The U.S. Supreme Court.
Seriously, one of my professors at the University of Texas, Scot Powe, clerked for William O. Douglas. At that time lawsuits about what was and was not obscene were being filed individually, and the justices (or their clerks) had to watch each one to write a brief on it for the decision.
Powe said the best part was walking out of one particularly bland showing with Thurgood Marshall, who turned to him and said, 'I think we need to send that one over to the FTC for false advertising.'
Don Negro
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall