Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
What, no screenshots??
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.
...the charges against me will be dropped and I can finally get on with my life...
Welcome to the land of the free...pay toll ahead...no photography...please open your bag...
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.
HURD - Hurd's Under Research & Development
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!!
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.
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.
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?