Public Up-Skirt Cams Ruled Legal

bje2 writes "Privacy advocates will undoubtedly be up in arms about a ruling by the Washington State Supreme court which decided that such privacy violating technology as 'up the skirt cams' are not illegal in public places (like a mall)... CNet has the story here."

Comments

Re:I don't understand this ruling

[Rick the Red]

First, the court is half-female. Second, the decision was announced by a female judge, who clearly stated her disgust at the situation. Third, changing the law will undoubtedly be the first act of the Legislature when they next meet.

That said, the case wasn't on civil liberties, it was on the "peeping tom" law, which was written to protect people's privacy in their own homes. It wasn't written to protect the privacy of people out in public, which is why the Court, reluctantly, found the practice legal. Old law, new un-imagined situation. The short-term effect is that more women are wearing pants in public.

Re:I don't understand this ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't tell it's you from that angle, so what difference does it make?

You assume that the photographer is only taking pictures from that one... erm... worm's-eye angle. Judging by the content of at least one site devoted to the practice, however, these pics are usually accompanied by easy-to-identify full-figure street shots of that same person. (God forbid the wankers lack a proper real-world context for their little fantasies.)

In short, it makes a hell of a lot of difference to the person in the photos.

What? Why are you looking at me like that? I mistyped a URL once, I swear...

Re:I don't understand this ruling

[DaytonCIM]

Straight from the opinion:

Washington's voyeurism statute provides:

A person commits the crime of voyeurism if, for the purpose of arousing or
gratifying the sexual desire of any person, he or she knowingly views,
photographs, or films another person, without that person's knowledge and
consent, while the person being viewed, photographed, or filmed is in a
place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
RCW 9A.44.115(2) (emphasis added). The statute defines a place where a
person 'would have a reasonable expectation of privacy' as either '{a}
place where a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe
in privacy, without being concerned that his or her undressing was being
photographed or filmed by another;' or '{a} place where one may reasonably
expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance.' RCW
9A.44.115(1)(b)(i), (ii).
Both Glas and Sorrells contend that the voyeurism statute was misapplied in
their respective cases because the victims were in public places and
therefore did not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy. In Glas,
both women were employees working in the public area of a shopping mall,
while in Sorrells, the woman was standing in a concession line at the Bite
of Seattle at the Seattle Center. Although Glas' and Sorrells' actions are
reprehensible, we agree that the voyeurism statute, as written, does not
prohibit upskirt photography in a public location.

Sometimes a Judge or Lawyer must protect or affirm a law or defendent that is reprehensible in order to protect ourselves.