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."

4 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I don't understand this ruling by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

    --
    If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
  2. Maybe now... by charlie763 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...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...
  3. Re:Offer void in Springfield by larien · · Score: 4, Funny
    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.

  4. Reasonable expectations of privacy. by fmaxwell · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?