Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Public Up-Skirt Cams Ruled Legal

Posted by timothy on from the when-judges-go-without-sleep dept.

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."

5 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. I don't understand this ruling by JPawloski · · Score: 2, Insightful

    these cameras are clearly violating the civil liberties of these women. why was this upheld?

    can those who are damaged sue the companies who are publicizing these websites?

    1. Re:I don't understand this ruling by ivan256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The short-term effect is that more women are wearing pants in public.

      I don't understand the big deal. So, perhaps somebody sees your underwear (or lack thereof). They can't tell it's you from that angle, so what difference does it make? I don't think that an image, or data of any sort for that matter, should be considered a violation of privacy unless it's attributable to somebody.

      What happens when people with skirts on walk on glass floors? Are glass floors going to be illegal too?

    2. Re:I don't understand this ruling by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I haven't seen either the law or decision in question, but I do rather suspect they could have stretched the law, as judges are apt to do, declared "under a skirt or kilt" to be a private place (albeit a mobile one) and not caused such a fuss. I further suspect they decided to stay in the letter rather than spirit of the law, in order to highlight this issue and get a stricter law passed about recording in public as well as private places.

  2. Peeping Tom Laws by DustMagnet · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This reminds me of a couple of peeping tom cases.

    In one case someone was invited into a home and placed hidden cameras without the owner's knowledge. This wasn't illegal.

    In another case, the owner of a tanning salon installed hidden cameras without knowledge of the women underessing. Under existing law, this was legal. There was a big stink and the state law was fixed. What I find funny is they finally nailed the guy. Turns out some of the women he filmed were under age. That's a bigger crime than violating someone's privacy.

    So if you decide to start filming up women's skirts, you'd better card them first.

    --
    'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
  3. Actually a good law IMHO... by Raccroc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The root of it steams from the part of the law stating "...the person being viewed, photographed, or filmed is in a place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy."

    This *should* include places like home, public bathrooms, and other places you can *resonably* expect some privacy.

    There are major problems with creating legislation to protect women/men from "upskirt" type behavior (effectivly creating the "upskirt area" as "a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy"). Exactly where does one draw the line between peeping and just viewing that which is plainly exposed?

    A women walking up the stairs generally isn't aware she is exposing herself to those underneath trying to view up her skirt.
    A women doing acobatics (e.g. cheerleeding & tennis) knows full well she is going to be exposing whatever is beneath her skirt.
    A women sitting on a bench with her legs not properly crossed may or may not be aware of prying eyes/cameras...

    Question is, how exactly do you draw the line. The way the law/current ruling states, women/men should be responsible for how they decide to dress. Agreed.