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

I don't understand this ruling

[JPawloski]

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?

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

[ivan256]

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?

Re:I don't understand this ruling

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

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.

Re:I don't understand this ruling

[addaon]

With glass floors, the person walking on them is aware that someone underneath them can look up, and makes a choice. One way glass, on the other hand, could easily be considered an invasion of privacy. Although it is an interesting idea...

Re:I don't understand this ruling

[Gerry Gleason]

That's pretty weak. I would think that someone walking around the mall with mirrors on his shoes trying to get a peek would run afoul of a "peeping tom" law. Even more so if using cameras.

I'm guessing that this is done to try to detect shoplifters putting items under their skirts, but I fail to see how this justifies invading everyones privacy in this way. Although a skirt doesn't ensure the privacy of what is under it, placing cameras with the express purpose of looking under a skirt is clearly an invasion of privacy. If it wouldn't be permitted to an individual, I see no reason to permit mall security to do the same.

Maybe someone with more legal knowledge can add something, but this is a search and would require showing cause. Also, wouldn't it have to be done by the police, not private security.

Re:I don't understand this ruling

[ivan256]

With glass floors, the person walking on them is aware that someone underneath them can look up, and makes a choice.

Then people can easily make the assumption that somebody can be looking up in any public place where they are not explicitly guaranteed privacy. I still assert that it would be irrational to be upset about somebody getting a picture of you this way. They can't tell it's you from the picture, so who cares?

I can't imagine that the image quality would be anything to write home about through one way glass.

Re:I don't understand this ruling

[zero1101]

Well, let's put it this way:
So let's say your ISP keeps a log of all of the web sites you visit. They can't tell it's you from your IP address, so what difference does it make?

Re:I don't understand this ruling

[ivan256]

They can't tell it's you from your IP address, so what difference does it make?

You're example isn't analogous with the situation we're discussing. They can tell that it's me from my IP address, and there are places where people can reasonably expect privacy. If it was a public access terminal it would be a valid comparison, and similarly I wouldn't care.

My TiVo sends data about what I do back to TiVo for them to sell, or do whatever with. They don't associate any identification with the data, so I don't care what they do with it.

If somebody has a picture of you, and it's impossible to tell it's you from the picture, then it may as well be a picture of somebody else, and it's not worth worrying about. Context is important, though. If the picture was taken without authorization in a place where you can reasonably (or leagally for practicality) expect privacy, then there is a problem with it, but the problem isn't the picture - it's the circumstances. While that person is taking said picture, you do not have privacy.

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

[n-baxley]

Judges jobs are not to make laws but to enforce and enterpert laws that are currently on the books. I applaud the judges for making a purely legal enterpretation of the law as it stands and I eagerly await the legisalture to jump on this and enact a new , more sane law.

Re:I don't understand this ruling

[gmhowell]

I don't know. I've spent so much time looking at her genitals, I bet I could pick 'em out in a lineup.

Re:I don't understand this ruling

[Dannon]

I do rather suspect they could have stretched the law, as judges are apt to do

The fact that they are apt to stretch the law is part of the reason for our legal system being so messed up.

Whenever law is 'made', there's some political motivation behind it. And it's always 'made' by someone. Either an elected legislator, or an elected/appointed judge. Usually elected at the local levels, and appointed at the higher levels.

If it's an Elected person making the law, and it's a Bad Law that tramples on the rights of the little people, or even just a Highly Unpopular Law, then the Little People do have a recourse to get that law changed. They can vote that person out. Granted, it doesn't always happen, but I'm talking ideally, here.

If, on the other hand, an appointed-until-retirement judge 'makes' law, rather than just interpreting it as written, well, that law is made, and only a higher court (again, populated by appointed-until-retirement judges) overrules. And there's no way to hold a judge accountable for his or her political motivations.

Also, ever wonder why litigation has gotten to be so bad in society today? One of the reasons is that even the most ridiculous cases may have merit in a court where the judge is not bound by written law.

So, I must agree with the judge here. Bad law, and it needs to be changed, but the courtroom is not the place to do it.

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.

Re:I don't understand this ruling

[Archfeld]

who says they can't tell its you...a fish-eye lens can capture quite and angle, a couple of cameras working together could EASILY ID any subject. I agree the point is the HIDDEN nature of the camera's. Post signs stating that low angle cameras are present and all this goes away. It is not the taking of pictures so much as trying to hide the fact.
All that aside this is rather low morally. Why I am suprised by it I don't know but humans are without a doubt the lowest and the highest creatures on earth....

Re:I don't understand this ruling

[tomhudson]

Gives a reason to buff that floor extra-well next time!

Seriously, only loosers are going to be looking at these things anyway. It's the same as if some other guy is looking at your dick when you're standing at the urinal - he's the one with the problem (unless he's 500 pounds of muscle, his name's Bubba, and you can hear him humming the "dueling banjos" music from the movie "Deliverance", in which case you may have a situation on your hands).

Offer void in Springfield

[rw2]

I learned, from years of watching The Simpsons, that these cams are nonesense. Just walk around in a kilt without underwear and there will be dozens of times when the prudes around you are shocked by your Monroe like ability to position yourself in a breeze.

Good judgement though. If you're in public you should expect to have your photo taken. If you are modest, put on some clothes.

Re:Offer void in Springfield

[larien]

Most Scottish kilts won't lift up in anything except the strongest breeze. At the front, there's a sporran to weigh it down and the back is pleated and therefore heavier.

I've worn a kilt tons of times to ceilidhs/weddings/rugby and the only times any prudes would have had any complaint was due to, ah, human intervention.

Re:Offer void in Springfield

[TheOnlyCoolTim]

Did you wear it in the style of a True Scotsman?

Tim

Re:Offer void in Springfield

[dh003i]

Idiot. They weren't walking around naked. They had clothes -- i.e., skirts -- on which made a reasonable effort to protect their privacy.

Re:Offer void in Springfield

[larien]

Now, that would be telling...:)

Re:Offer void in Springfield

[rw2]

Idiot

Idiot?

Obviously highly educated repartee aside(*), I'm not the one wearing a skirt and then complaining that people can look up it.

Let's take a little bit of personal responsibility here folks.

(*) See also, irony

Re:Offer void in Springfield

[DaytonCIM]

Let's take a little bit of personal responsibility here folks.

Personal responsibility is not an ideal most Americans practice.

Screenshots?

[seanmeister]

What, no screenshots??

well, simple answer, for the pragmatic.

[Unknown Poltroon]

Cover it under harrasment laws. Some nimrod following you around with a camera must be coverd by harrasment, stalking, creating a public nusance.

Re:well, simple answer, for the pragmatic.

[fault0]

If the nimrod were to just swoop past the women (or Scottish man), this would definatly not be held up under harassment laws. Under current laws, it'd be similiar to taking someone's picture in a public place.

Of course, if it goes out of control, fully expect legislatures and city councils to ban such behavior through city ordinances and laws. I beleive most such anti-voyeur legislation is actually done in the city level right now. However, while private and quasi-public places (public bathrooms, dressing rooms, changing rooms, etc), are pretty well protected, most public locations are not.

Re:well, simple answer, for the pragmatic.

[adamjaskie]

Interesting thought: I am in a photography class, and the teacher told us that if photographing people in a public place, if they will be recognizable in the photograph, you should have them sign a "model release form" if you will be making money from the picture. Otherwise, they can sue you. You have to arrange with them terms for you to use their image, usually like you send them a free copy of the picture, pay them some money, etc. Would this situation be any different? I dont know the exact laws that apply in the situation, but it seems there must be something. Of course, how you define "easily recognizable" in this situation has to be considered...

Re:well, simple answer, for the pragmatic.

[DaytonCIM]

Pretty close... If the women had noticed that the two men were filming them and asked/demanded they stop; AND the men continued filming, then you have a case for harrasment.
Better yet, the law they were convicted of would have stood the test.

Whew! Don't worry lads - the internet's saved!

[psicic]

I bet a few of the webmasters of the seedier sites(the one's I've never even seen...*cough*) are breathing sighs of relief at this. Imagine a web where they couldn't get new content - same old pictures popping up everywhere, having to push their wares in totally inappropriate forums, listing under fake descriptions in search engines, infinite self-spawning porno pop-ups linked to the most inconspicuous of sites. Ahh, yes...aren't we lucky to keep things the way they are.

Mind you,the ruling will obviously be used to tighten up laws in this area(no pun intended)- since I get the vibe most people wouldn't be flattered to be the subject of these shots.(Heck, I don't even like to have a photo of my face taken).

I suppose it's all part of the law-making process.

- My own opinion is that if the person doesn't mind being photographed, well that's fine. Equally, they shouldn't have to wear sixteen layers of clothing when they go out in order to avoid the camera's glare. Just as the photographer has the right to photograph, an individual should have the right not to be photographed(save for a whole bunch of mitigating cercumstances, such as criminal investiations and the like.)

8)

Re:Whew! Don't worry lads - the internet's saved!

[DaytonCIM]

I bet a few of the webmasters of the seedier sites(the one's I've never even seen...*cough*) are breathing sighs of relief at this.

Only those sites hosted in Washington State. I'd hate to try and test this in... any of the MidWest or Southern States.

Maybe now...

[charlie763]

...the charges against me will be dropped and I can finally get on with my life...

idiot lawyers

[austad]

The lawyers for the side that wanted it made illegal were idiots. All they had to do was submit into evidence photos taken with a hidden camera right outside the weight watchers store at the mall.

mis-filed article?

[farnsworth]

doesn't this belong in the 'your genitals online' section?

model release form

[zenyu]

If you use their image in advertising or sell it as clip art then you need it. But if you are going to make money from selling prints after a gallery showing or you will make money indirectly from having their picture in a news story you don't need a release. This isn't law per-say but based on precident from Judges deciding how to balance free speech against privacy.

The reasoning might be that an artist or photojournalist needs your picture to get their point across, but an advertiser is trying to sell a product not advance an idea so they could use someone else's mug if you wouldn't sign the release. It's a good idea to get a release if you can since you might want to sell the picture for commercial use someday. Magazine covers count as commercial art for instance. And the legal climate may very well change, IP law is extending further everyday, you may not be able to show in a gallery someday soon without releases.

My picture was used in a postcard once without a release, or even a thank you. This was 15 years ago, these days ppl could be sued for that. (Not that I would, nor that anyone should win.)

Hacking?!?!?

[penguin_punk]

I'm new to these post-9/11 hacking laws.

So let me get this straight. I can't scan or finger your ports but I can take pictures of them?

*scribble*scribble*scribble*

Ok, I think I got it. Next lesson please.

Idiot judge

[dh003i]

You can't expect privacy in your own fucking underwear?

What a fucking moron this judge is. Probably the same kind of person who thinks Rita Wilson's "thong checks" were OK.

Aside from being a violation of privacy, this was also sexual harassment.

When people make a reasonable effort to cover their private areas -- namely, groinal areas -- yes, they do have a fucking expectation of privacy there.

Re:Idiot judge

[sg_oneill]

RTFS(Read the fucking story!) You idiot. Judges can't just make up laws , they have to follow the laws as they stand. The current laws say that stuff that happens in public is public. The law needs to change. That's why the judge was pissed at the decision she made. She had no choice in the matter.

Re:Idiot judge

[dh003i]

Bullshit. You have the expectation of privacy in in your own underclothes, even in public.

Never-the-less, aside from being a violation of privacy, this is clearly sexual harassment / assault. Clearly, these men should be in jail.

Peeping Tom Laws

[DustMagnet]

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.

Read the decision

[Ethidium]

Reading the replies here, it's obvious that many people are posting without actually reading the decision. I know nobody likes to read convoluted legal documents, but this one is relatively short. The bit that pertains to the legality of upskirt photography took me five minutes to read. The link in the story will take you to the Washington Judiciary page, or you can click here and go straight to the ruling. It makes much more sense when you read it.

Re:Read the decision

[aminorex]

> It makes much more sense when you read it.

That's the problem. Once you've read it, you
are under their control. Until then, you are
free to make a *reasonable* interpretation of
the events.

Timeline

[asscroft]

beginning of time - someone peeps into someone's house - the most famous guy who did this was named tom.
19?? - someone passes a peeping tom law
1964 - mini-skirt craze
1994 - internet goes mainstream & webcams come out
1994 - someone puts an upskirt cam in a mall
1994 - someone detects that lots of mini-skirt wearing women don't wear panties either
1994 - someone puts upskirt pics on internet and profits
2002 - peeping tom law doesn't apply
2003 - new, cyber peeping tom law passes
2004 - new, wearing skirt without panties law passes
2005 - wearing skirt without panties law proved un-enforceable without hidden upskirt cameras
2006 - cyber peeping tom law repealed for law enforcement
2007 - first bumper sticker that says "when hidden upskirt cameras are illegal, only cops and criminals will see your butt"
2008 - porn sites based on advanced radar based XRay technology developed for airport security replaces upskirt camera websites.
2009 - cyber peeping tom law doesn't apply ...etc.

Actually a good law IMHO...

[Raccroc]

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.

We have rights, they just implied

[phorm]

Furthemore, you don't have a right to privacy in public

You do have a right not to be harrassed, and in Canadian law, a certain right to personal privacy of one's own body as well. Apparently American law is a bit different in this sense. I've never yet called somebody an idiot on slashdot, but now I think I will. You sir, are an idiot. There is a reason people wear clothes in public, there is a reason we cover our genitalia. If we didn't expect personal privacy in public places, why would we practice (and be expected to practice) wearing clothes in public places?

One of the problems of this case is that law is closed to societal interpretation. If every small detail has to be specified in a law, some idiot is almost almost going to find a loophole. It's implied in society that we have a right not to have our genetalia or undergarments photographed. Common sense unfortunately is often overruled by one law blanketing the lack of specifics in another.
If somebody has a right to photograph up my wife's skirt, I should have a right to kick him in the testicles - phorm

Re:We have rights, they just implied

[ivan256]

There is a reason people wear clothes in public, there is a reason we cover our genitalia.

People wearing clothes are not going to have their genatalia photographed. It's just not practical. You still get just as much privacy as your clothes have always provided.

It's implied in society that we have a right not to have our genetalia or undergarments photographed.

Really? We have a worldwide societal consensus? We can end all wars and live together in harmony now? Please. There are many sociteies on this planet, and a vast number of opinions ranging from each extreme on this subject. Hell, we can't even all agree that we're entitled to our own opinions.

Somebody else may have said: "It's implied in society that women should have to keep their faces hidden in public." It depends on where and when you are.

Common sense unfortunately is often overruled by one law blanketing the lack of specifics in another.

Aside from comments about laws and rights, I still assert that it's irrational to consider a photograph of somebody's undergament a violation of said person's privacy. It is not anymore a violation of privacy than somebody dressing up like somebody else and getting a picture taken up that skirt. If you can't tell who the picture is of, then the person in the picture has maintained their privacy.

If somebody has a right to photograph up my wife's skirt, I should have a right to kick him in the testicles

If the wind blows your wife's skirt up, do you want to kick everybody who looks too?

I've never yet called somebody an idiot on slashdot, but now I think I will. You sir, are an idiot.

The (apparently) revised definition of idiot:

Idiot \Id"i*ot\, n. Any person that you have a difference of opinion with regarding what should be socially acceptable.

If you want to call me a barbarian, or something similarly based on a subjective viewpoint, than you are entitled to your opinions. There are a vast number of negative nouns that could be acurately used in regards to me, but I dare say that 'idiot' isn't one of them. Perhaps we should just say that your idea of 'Common Sense' is different than mine for whatever reason.

Re:We have rights, they just implied

[phorm]

Really? We have a worldwide societal consensus? We can end all wars and live together in harmony now? Please. There are many sociteies on this planet, and a vast number of opinions ranging from each extreme on this subject. Hell, we can't even all agree that we're entitled to our own opinions.
This is an American law article, therefore I am referencing American society. Most people would consider it a reasonable expectation not to have their bodies photographed. Most people would also be embarrassed were they to be photographed, regardless of whether the masses could identify them.

This may be fine in other cultures, but in North America the viewpoint is that among the reasons we wear clothes is to protect our modesty and privacy, which in this case is being violated.

You have a right to conduct yourself and your person in a manner that doesn't offend others. If you were to want to photograph yourself and those willing, put the picture up on billboards or the internet or wherever, that's fine.

You can put whatever your want within the confines of a mall, but when it invades (whether physically or visually) the confines of the clothing of unwilling participants, then you are violating their privacy and dignity.

The comment I find idiotic is the fact that you state that if a person in fact has that dignity violated, it is not in fact a violation due to the semi-anonymous nature of the violation.

Will you agree that, in addition, it will be quite likely that the cameras in question will at time photograph the flesh or undergarments of those underage, and in conjunction with the other pictures, be used in a way that gratifies the sexual desires of those viewing. In this case, do you consider this also legal, despite the laws against underage pornography or pictures to that nature?
Keep in mind that in previous cases, it has been seen that obvious intent to distribute underage pictures as a sexual medium has overridden the fact that many laws only cover these as poses or positions of a sexual nature.

Last point. Do you have a wife or girlfriend (or are a woman?) If so, do you believe that she/you would not feel violated were she to have her genetalia photographed, again regardless of the chance (but not guarantee) that the photograph will likely be anonymous of her facial or some other publicly identifiable features?

Re:We have rights, they just implied

[ivan256]

Will you agree that, in addition, it will be quite likely that the cameras in question will at time photograph the flesh or undergarments of those underage, and in conjunction with the other pictures, be used in a way that gratifies the sexual desires of those viewing. In this case, do you consider this also legal, despite the laws against underage pornography or pictures to that nature?

What the images are used for is not the issue. Child pornography is illegal because of the abuse caused in the creation of it. It is still not illegal to find under age people sexually attractive.

The concept of a thought crime is wrong. Period. I don't care what your thought is. For that reason, it should be the method that such a picture is created or obtained that is regulated, not what it's intended use is. Similarly, I consider any argument as to the legality of "hidden camera" pictures invalid if it is based on such reasoning.

Last point. Do you have a wife or girlfriend (or are a woman?) If so, do you believe that she/you would not feel violated were she to have her genetalia photographed, again regardless of the chance (but not guarantee) that the photograph will likely be anonymous of her facial or some other publicly identifiable features?

Yes, I have a Fiancee, and I would not feel violated in such a case, in fact it would be unlikely that I would ever know of such a picture, and you wouldn't be able to convince me it was actually of her if there were truely no identifiable features.

I would be displeased if somebody tried to be a "look alike" and posed for explicit photos, but it would not change my opinion that such a practice should be legal outside of the standard libel laws.

Re:We have rights, they just implied

[ivan256]

Or perhaps you're just far too stupid to imagine yourself in that situation, perhaps wearing a kilt one day and finding out the next that someone you don't know has posted pictures of your face, your body, and your underwear on the Internet for all and sundry to view. Can you take a moment to really imagine what it would feel like, or do you quickly toss out, "I wouldn't care," while you jack off to yet another skirtcam site?

I hate to sling petty insults, but I'll make an exception because I'm going to use your own words.

Perhaps you're just to stupid to realize that somebody might have a different opinion then you about what should and should not be socially acceptable. I can honestly say that if somebody did something like that to me I would find it humorous and shrug it of. Oh, and no, I don't enjoy visiting skirt cam sites on the internet. I do, however, enjoy seeing attractive women in public with all their clothes on, and I don't think that this is any more unacceptable then me enjoying the "scenery". I also respect your right to disagree with me, and I only think you're stupid becuase you apparently don't allow that right to others. If the majority of public opinion is on your side, then the laws will favor your view point and I do obey the law, but I'm not going to change my views just becuase the majority may think differently. I am not them, I'm me.

You may be an exhibitionist and so you can give your permission to have your underwear photographed. Others of us aren't exhibitionists; we prefer privacy rules along the lines of: deny=all, allow=these.

That's fine, but I still assert that if you don't want some part of you (or some piece of your clothing) photographed, then you should cover it up in public. I'm not saying you have to let people take pictures of you in your underwear, I'm saying that if you expose your underwear in public, then it may get photographed. I am not an exhibitionist; I wear pants.

Re:We have rights, they just implied

[ivan256]

I'm not going to sling insults any longer, but I am going to try to state my opinion perhaps more clearly than before. If you don't mind people looking up your clothing, that's fine. Some do, some don't. But, in all cases the person choosing to look up someone's clothes should get permission before doing so. I do realize that different people will have different opinions about what is acceptible. That's a very good use for language: I can ask you if my desired action would offend you.

Do you ask permission before you have any contact with anybody. I didn't think so. There are some things that are acceptable by default. Looking at people, taking pictures in public, etc. There are lots of things where permission is implied. The line between where you have to ask permission and where you don't is subjective. People have different opinions. You would be painfully aware of this if you ever traveled to a place where the local culture had a different line than you do. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you're from the US, and you've never been to europe, or you would already know what I mean. Until you start asking permission to look in somebody's general direction, and getting everybody in the frame;s permission before taking vacation pictures, I will continue to disagree with you.

Nothing is a clear cut as you believe. If it were, the world would be a much more peaceful place.

Intelligent Judge, Idiot Prolotariat

[FreeUser]

Bullshit. You have the expectation of privacy in in your own underclothes, even in public.

Clearly you are either overly emotional, feeble minded, or both.

1) The photographs taken were not taken within the underclothes in question, they were taken of the exterior of the underclothes in question, so your point even as stated is erroneous and fallacious.

What is more,

2) The law states that "the person being viewed, photographed, or filmed is in a place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy." The legal definition of "place" does not include 'inside a person's clothing' or even 'inside a person's body' (indeed, it doesn't even cover 'inside a person's automobile'). The judge had no recourse, and had they ruled otherwise they would have been (very correctly) overruled on appeal, and the necessary changes to the law needed to make that sort of reprehensible behavior illegal would have been unnecessarilly, and foolishly, delayed.

I suspect you will find that, by losing this case, the complaintants will have actually had more impact on public policy, and getting the laws fixed, than they would have if they had won the case. So calm down, get a grip, and start thinking rationally, rather than screaming insults at the female judge simply because she did what she had to, constrained as she was by the law.

Never-the-less, aside from being a violation of privacy, this is clearly sexual harassment / assault. Clearly, these men should be in jail.

That is utter nonsense. And I suppose you're the type of person that considers suggestive eye contact or visual examination of a person's body from a distance tantamount to physical assault or emotional duress, or that equates the illegal sharing of music with theft, or some other feeble-minded, nonsensical equivelence of mismatched notions. Feh, feeble minded indeed.

Antisocial behavior it most certainly was, but in no way are these people being assaulted or sexually harassed (both have specific definitions which this activity falls well outside of). The jerks taking these photographs have not violated any laws and thus, by any rational definition, do not belong in jail (though their parents certainly should have disciplined them much more severely during their youth). However, the law needs to be fixed so that, if these assholes continue in this behavior, they will be jailed, at which point I suspect you'll discover that the behavior stops.

Which is really the point now, all emotionalism and angry sensationalism aside, isn't it?

Re:Intelligent Judge, Idiot Prolotariat

[dh003i]

(1) I maintain that a person has a reasonable expectation of pri vacy to any part of his/her body which clothing is covered.

(2) This was sexual harassment. Getting a camera and looking underneath someone's skirt is clearly sexual harassment. Its as bad as walking up to someone and lifing up their skrit to see what's underneath (which is what VP Rita Wilson did to her students).

Re:Intelligent Judge, Idiot Prolotariat

[dh003i]

No, if your wearing a shirt, someone can't use a mini-camera and look up it.

Taking pictures of anything visible on a person in public (which does not include up her skirt) is fine. Prying for things which aren't ordinarily visible is not.

Re:Intelligent Judge, Idiot Prolotariat

[sg_oneill]

No. That's what the law OUGHT to say, but it doesn't. That's why the judgment was as it was. Why is this difficult to understand?

Re:Intelligent Judge, Idiot Prolotariat

[dh003i]

Because the right to privacy supercedes laws, and laws which do not adequately respect or protect it are in error. The Supreme Court has a long history of affirming the right to privacy, most notably in Roe v. Wade.

Re:Intelligent Judge, Idiot Prolotariat

[sg_oneill]

Um.... Are you certain about that?
Constitutional Privacy rights tend to arise out of the Fourth amendment.
This covers actions of government. Nothing here says a private citizen can't camera peoples exposed undies in public.

Fourth amendment
================
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Re:Intelligent Judge, Idiot Prolotariat

[dh003i]

So, according to you, the rights gauranteed by the amendments are only gauranteed against the government? Our right to life isn't violated if someone other than the government kills us?

The right to privacy protects us against the government and other citizens. The founding father's weren't dumb enough to think that the only threat to our rights is the government.

Re:Intelligent Judge, Idiot Prolotariat

[sg_oneill]

No. It's just that the right to privacy defined in the constitution isn't what you think it is. Read the fourth ammendment verry clearly. It's the only thing that even implies privacy and it doesn't apply to citizens. The cameras in public bit is an old thing thats been challenged many many times over (I'm a journalist, trust me I know about these things) and time and time again the supreme court has found that taking photographs in public places does not violate privacy considerations. I can assure you my friend that these supreme court guys know these things verry well. And yeah, if you read that constitution, you will see that privacy in public aint in there, only an implied right to privacy in areas that can be reasonably shown to have an expectation of privacy (ones own house, public toilets etc). Obviously sticking a camera down someones pants would be illegal. That's sexual harassment. But upskirt cams are , unfortunately, legal . It's not harassment either as harassment requires a direct command to cease an activity. (Ie "Please stop filming my breasts, you are making me uncomfortable".)

Re:Intelligent Judge, Idiot Prolotariat

[dh003i]

Upskirt cams are no different in terms of privacy violations than sticking a camera down someone's pants.

It's not harassment either as harassment requires a direct command to cease an activity. (Ie "Please stop filming my breasts, you are making me uncomfortable".)

An unreasonable standard, as upskirt cam-cording is usually unknown by the victim. If the victim knew the camera was there, (s)he'd undoubtedly demand the other person stop.

Re:Intelligent Judge, Idiot Prolotariat

[sg_oneill]

Unreasonable standard perhaps, but it's the standard used.
Either way. It's an issue for law reform. I agree it's shitty, and it's the stuff of tabloids but thats the law. It does need to be changed. Remember : The law is an ass.

Incidental vs intentional viewing.

[phorm]

In this case the persons in question would not being doing any unusual activity nor wearing any obscene or unusual clothing in which to expose themselves. Incidental viewing would be acceptable (in which case you happen to get a side glance of something naughty). However, the cameras are not incidental viewing, but are rather planted for exposure and in a orientation designed to facilitate and maximize said exposure.
Indeed, if a person were to see the camera and then deliberately expose herself to it, it would be her fault. If the camera catches the person's genetalia/undergarments due to its intentional positioning, rather than due to an intentional gesture of the individual, there would be the difference.
Those wearing skirts should wear underwear, however.

Read case file? (We have rights, they just implied

[phorm]

What the images are used for is not the issue. Child pornography is illegal because of the abuse caused in the creation of it. It is still not illegal to find under age people sexually attractive

Regardless this avoids the point. It's still illegal to take the pictures, even of willing minors. If you want to pull this to thoughtcrime, it would be the viewers of the pictures, who are unaffected except to have a particular source removed.

Would SHE not feel violated if somebody walked behind her and flashed a picture from up her skirt. This is what is described in the case. Some guy walking around taking pictures from up girls' skirts, not just a planted camera. In this case, I think it's also fairly obvious to the victim that they've just been photographed. The guy even used a flash!

Re:Read case file? (We have rights, they just impl

[ivan256]

Regardless this avoids the point. It's still illegal to take the pictures, even of willing minors. If you want to pull this to thoughtcrime, it would be the viewers of the pictures, who are unaffected except to have a particular source removed.

It is you, sir, that avoid the point. The illegality of the practice has nothing to do with the intents of the viewers. You were trying to imply that up-skirt photography was worse because of the intents of the consumers of the pictures. (At least that's what it seemed like you meant.)

If could also be turned around. What if the intent was a marketing study to see what types of underwear women wear with skirts? Would that make it less wrong than if it were for use as porno?

Would SHE not feel violated if somebody walked behind her and flashed a picture from up her skirt. This is what is described in the case. Some guy walking around taking pictures from up girls' skirts, not just a planted camera. In this case, I think it's also fairly obvious to the victim that they've just been photographed. The guy even used a flash!

Then we are arguing about different things. My comment was in regards to hidden cameras and as a response to somebody else's comment, not about the situation from the story. There is more involved than just a photo if somebody is physically getting that close to you with a camera. It's boredering on assult. If somebody got that close to my fiancee without her permission, his ass would be being kicked before I found out he was even trying to take a picture up her skirt. (I don't kick in the testicles, though. There are some things that nobody deserves :)

As for the hidden camera scenario, which is what I thought we were discussing, I'll ask her tonight and let you know. My guess is that she'll share my opinion.

Even though I've been arguing with you about this all day, I do think that people who take and publicise up-skirt photos with a hidden camera are despicable scum, but there are many things that I personally don't aprove of that I think should not be regualted by law.

There are people who distribute views down people's shirts taken with standard issue security cameras, and I think that is worse than an up skirt picture, because it get's your face too. I certainly am not against security cameras. If you're in public you should have an expectation that you will be video taped or photographed, because you are everyday. If there are parts of you you don't want seen, you should cover them apropriately.

Reasonable expectations of privacy.

[fmaxwell]

This ruling is fundamentally flawed. Women wear skirts with the expectation that people will not see up them since people, are, by and large, taller than 24". A woman could reasonably expect that, were she not walking on a scaffolding that people would not see up her skirt. That technology has made it possible for someone to violate a woman's privacy with a quarter-sized camera does not mean that it should be legal.

Another question: Based on this ruling, a woman should expect that people will be able to see up her skirt. Does that mean that she would be guilty of exposing herself if she wore a knee length skirt with no underwear?

Re:Reasonable expectations of privacy.

[nuggz]

Yes and no, read the ruling.

Is She in a place where she should have a reasonable expectation of privacy, are her legs in a different place then the rest of her.

The court ruled that a person, and there parts can not bein two separate places, one where it is public and one where it is private at the same time.

The court agrees he shouldn't have done that, but lacking a law that says it is illegal means they can't do anything. They must judge the law and the actions fairly, whether they agree or disagree with the actions themselves.

The law should be rewritten.

Re:Reasonable expectations of privacy.

[fmaxwell]

Is She in a place where she should have a reasonable expectation of privacy, are her legs in a different place then the rest of her.

I say "yes". Her legs are below the rest of her and she has a reasonable expectation that anyone, or any security camera, will be viewing her from a vantage point above the hemline of her skirt. Also, privacy is not an all-or-nothing affair. She should expect that, if she adjusts her bra, for instance, a camera might catch it. But that does not mean that she should have a "reasonable expectation" that hidden cameras will be employed to see up her skirt.

Again, if there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, is a woman who wears a knee-length skirt without panties underneath guilty of indecent exposure?

They must judge the law and the actions fairly, whether they agree or disagree with the actions themselves.

Judges can infer the intent of the legislators when a law does not directly address a given situation.

Re:Reasonable expectations of privacy.

[nuggz]

Judges can infer the intent of the legislators when a law does not directly address a given situation

They didn't need to, the "peeping tom" law does not apply to public places, she was in a public place. The arguement that partial enclosure of a person body constitutes a separate legal space deserving of separate protection is arguable, does this mean I can't stare at a woman in a mesh top, but I can stare at one in a tight sweater?

I agree there is a reasonable expectation people won't run around drop to the floor and take upskirt pictures. Just because he violates her expectations doesn't mean he's doing anything illegal.

Again, if there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, is a woman who wears a knee-length skirt without panties underneath guilty of indecent exposure?
I wouldn't think so, she is taking reasonable means to conceal herself. Some jurisdictions may disagree.

Re:Reasonable expectations of privacy.

[fmaxwell]

The arguement that partial enclosure of a person body constitutes a separate legal space deserving of separate protection is arguable, does this mean I can't stare at a woman in a mesh top, but I can stare at one in a tight sweater?

In the former case, the person is making her breasts publically visible. You are not using some type of clandestine means to see what's under her top. That's really the essence of Peeping Tom laws -- the clandestine means.

> Again, if there is no reasonable expectation of
> privacy, is a woman who wears a knee-length skirt
> without panties underneath guilty of indecent
> exposure?

I wouldn't think so, she is taking reasonable means to conceal herself. Some jurisdictions may disagree.

Most jurisdictions have laws that stipulate what must be covered, not requirements that people make reasonable efforts to cover themselves.

I think what will put an end to this is when one of these cameras catches a shot of an underage girl. Then we are talking about child pornography. A little jail time will ensure that, at the least, such cameras only appear in areas frequented by adults.

Simple

[nuggz]

Read the article, they clearly state you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a shopping mall.
The law as written does not prohibit this act, although the court agrees it is reprehensible.

Re:Truce?

[ivan256]

The problem I find is, we both agree that upskirt cammers who deal on the internet are scum, but neither of us can then find a way to deal with them in particular that wouldn't likely set a bad legal precedent for other cases with legal sleazy motives?

Sure. I think that the best solution to the problem isn't necissarily legal, because the law would have to either be so narrow that somebody would find a way around it, to broad such that it would harm innocent people, or people would just start doing something else reprehensible. I think that the correct solution is to cover things that you don't want photographed.

BTW, At dinner last night I asked my Fiancee what she would think if she found out somebody had an up-skirt photo on their web site that was taken of her while she was in public, and she said "I would find it funny that somebody would want to look at me like that."