Mass. Legislature Strikes Back: Upskirt Photos Now Officially a Misdemeanor

Just a day after a Massachusetts court said that current state law didn't specifically address "upskirt" snapshots (and so left taking them legal in itself, however annoying or invasive), an alert Massachusetts legislature has crafted and passed a bill to fix the glitch, and gotten it signed by the governor as well. As reported by the BBC, "The bill states that anyone who 'photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils' a person's sexual or intimate parts without consent should face a misdemeanor charge. The crime becomes a felony - punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine - if the accused secretly takes indecent photographs of anyone under the age of 18." The New York Daily News points out this bill became a law without so much as a public hearing.

Comments

no surprise

[daniel23]

Thou shalt not make thee any graven image.

Re:no surprise

[ichthus]

What does forming idols for worship have to do with this?

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I'm recording my girlfriend at the beach and some topless 5 year old girl wanders through the frame or happens to be in the background and her mom gets a bug up her ass about it... I'm charged with a felony? No thanks. If you don't want to chance it ending up on film, don't make it visible in public.

Re:no surprise

[noh8rz10]

I got four letters for you:J-U-R-Y. A panel of reasonable people will be able to interpret the meaning of the upskirt law, and be able to differentiate between pervs on the subway and accidental photo bombs the beach. That's the whole point of juries and why they are such an important part of the justice system. No need to be a slippery-slope absolutist.

Re:no surprise

[Oligonicella]

Not at all what the law covers. No clandestine photographing being done. What a lame extreme to promote.

Re:no surprise

[arth1]

When it comes to cases of moral, juries are worse than worthless. No one will stand up defending the rights of a potential sexual predator, even if probably innocent. Whether there's actual guilt or not, the jurors are under a tremendous social pressure to not appear to defend child pornography.

I am fairly certain that lawyers strongly recommend that defendants should do pretty much anything to avoid a jury trial, even if innocent. Because they will be found guilty.

Re:no surprise

[JBMcB]

Sure, it'll just cost you $10,000 for a lawyer.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes that is the reason for a jury. But I am highly skeptical that the prosecution would ever let such people on the jury to begin with.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Law doesn't say it has to be hidden or clandestine. Even if it did, it is possible to "secretly" film something right out in the open: "He was using the pretext of filming the woman in order to capture video of my little girl frolicking innocently in the water in the background!"

As to those mentioning juries: outside jury nullification (which NEVER HAPPENS) the jury exists only to determine guilt based on the law. The judge will tell the jury: "You are here to examine the evidence and determine if the defendant has broken the law. The law states that nobody may photograph or videotape a person's intimate parts without consent." And in the scenario outlined above the prosecutor would have no trouble proving that using the video itself.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Here, you should RTFL:

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section105

Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils another person who is nude or partially nude, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, when the other person in such place and circumstance would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being so photographed, videotaped or electronically surveilled, and without that person’s knowledge and consent, shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 21/2 years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

I really hope that "21/2 years" is a typo on the Mass. legislature's website, and not the actual text of the law.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: it does say "intent to hide such activity" but like I already pointed out, that's qualified in the scenario already.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you that this is what a jury SHOULD do but in practice, this does not happen.

Judges and prosecutors always advocate for strict interpretations of the law when giving jury instructions and try really hard to weed our jurors who would apply their own moral lens to the facts of a case (prospective jurors are almost always questioned about how they would formulate a judgement, ones that indicate they would refuse to convict in spite of evidence suggestion a technical violation of the law are nearly always tossed from the pool). While it is not illegal to practice jury nullification, defense attorneys are barred in virtually every courtroom from informing jurors that they have this right. Jurors might also feel pressured not to use their right of nullification because they fear retribution from the judge or fellow jurors.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

No. They won't. Juries are often given very details, *and conflicting*, directions from judges about what exactly the law is and how to interpret it. This includes immediately disqualifying any juror who mentions that they know about "jury nullification". The instructions are often very different depending on the opinions of the judge and their clerks who prepare the briefs that the judge relies on for relevant guidelines.

So juries can be, and often are, instructed quite badly and take the judge's instructions very seriously. Not to do so is to risk contempt of court charges.

Re:No surprise

[zippthorne]

In the US jurors can acquit for any reason and aren't required to say what it was. Usually they rule on findings of fact, but that is not a requirement as far as I know. There are a number of organizations proselytizing what they believe are the full "rights" of a jury, for instance, the fully informed jury association.

This is often derided by those who fear that racist jurors will acquit criminals whose victims are a discriminated against group and praised by those who fear that the the overwhelming body of existing law can be used against pretty much anyone - it's impossible t know the entirety of the law and so its impossible to avoid ever breaking it.

At the moment my fear of tyranny outweighs my fear of racists, though. I don't know if that will always be the case or if that historically would have been a poor assessment generally, but I think we need to think long and hard about ameliorating the potential issues of wrongful acquittals in other ways before risking an increase of wrongful convictions.

Re:no surprise

[sjames]

If only you could benefit from that before you spend your life savings on a lawyer (non-refundable), get fired, and have your name dragged through the media.

That and if judges would stop trying to weed out jurors that believe in nullification.

At one time, prosecutors usually did a decent job of not prosecuting the obviously innocent (or perhaps we just didn't hear of their misconduct as much), but these days they seem to have little care for guilt or innocence as long as they get their conviction.

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, the jury's judgement is unimpeachable (though if it could be argued that the jury was tainted somehow or violated their rules of conduct, a mistrial can be declared and a retrial could happen). Any juror can show up and choose not to convict in spite of the evidence - a juror does not have to explain himself to anyone.

Judges and prosecutors will never tell a jury this and judges will hold any defense attorney in contempt for trying to do so. The government absolutely detests it, to the point of arresting and trying a man who distributed information on the concept of nullification outside of a federal courthouse: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/20/nyregion/indictment-against-julian-heicklen-jury-nullification-advocate-is-dismissed.html

But a juror will never get in trouble for using it.

Re:no surprise

[misexistentialist]

Except the potential of 2-5 years will make you take a plea deal 100% of the time, unless you are dumb/crazy

Re:no surprise

[FatdogHaiku]

OK, if she stands still long enough for someone to carve or sculpt a likeness then I gotta think she's kinda into it...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/graven

Re:no surprise

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

You say that in a context of police and prosecutors who deliberately abuse laws, pointing to words and technical violations, so they can pad their tough guy credentials?

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Michael Robertson made a graven image of the Goddess Vageejay. God doesn't like that, and neither does the Massachusetts legislature.

Re:no surprise

[kheldan]

You must be a "rules lawyer" type of RPG player, the kind that ruins the whole game for everyone quibbling with the DM throughout the entire campaign over the wording of the rules, just so you can get your way.

There is the letter of the law, then there is the spirit of the law. In a properly governed society, the latter is the norm, and in your fictional-but-plausible scenario, the cop who you ended up talking to would realize that it was accidental and innocent, and nothing more would come of it.

So far as this story goes? Why should anyone have a problem with it, except for the mere procedural aspect of how it came about? Nobody should be all-for people being able to violate someone's privacy by covertly photographing their private parts, in public or no, and for that matter a well-adjusted person shouldn't want to do such things in the first place, in my opinion, and I don't think I'm alone in that, either.

Re:no surprise

[gIobaljustin]

Are people who stick up for their principles so rare these days that they're labeled "dumb" or "crazy"?

Re:no surprise

[sconeu]

Believe it or not, juries sometimes actually DO the right thing, even when sexual predators are involved.

WARNING: Anecdotal evidence follows:

About 15 years ago, I was the jury foreman on a particularly disgusting case... the guy was accused of doing his daughters. We were only able to convict him of one count: "Contributing to the delinquency", because we all agreed that he showed his daughters porn.

We hung on 4 other charges, oddly enough with 4 different splits. On one of the charges, I was one of those voting to acquit.

Re:no surprise

[The Grim Reefer]

So if I'm recording my girlfriend at the beach and some topless 5 year old girl wanders through the frame or happens to be in the background and her mom gets a bug up her ass about it... I'm charged with a felony? No thanks. If you don't want to chance it ending up on film, don't make it visible in public.

I don't think I saw it in the linked article, but I believe the law specifies flming genitals. Which I don't believe would include breasts, prepubescent or otherwise.

I do wonder how long it will take for a parent to get charged for taking bath tub photos of their iinfant.

Lastly, being that this is /., I would suggest you stick to taking pictures of your imaginary girlfriend in the comfort of your basement. After all that topless girls mother can't see her.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Are people who stick up for their principles so rare these days that they're labeled "dumb" or "crazy"?

They tend to be labeled "inmates". The few encountered in the wild are put on watchlists and their breeding and migration habits are monitored to gain a better understanding of them and prevent plagues of them stuffing ballot boxes. The principled people watching societies use techniques like arrests, lobbying and gerrymandering to keep those specimens from causing large-scale damage to our economy.

Re:no surprise

[nbauman]

It takes more than four letters to answer you, but I wouldn't want my life to be in the hands of the juries on some of those day care sex abuse cases. And I wouldn't want to spend my life savings on legal fees. Would you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see anywhere in your comment where you stated that you're super-mega-ultra anti-child pornography (like I am), so you must look at child porn! Thought we wouldn't find out, did you?

Re:no surprise

[gIobaljustin]

because we all agreed that he showed his daughters porn.

So?

Re:No surprise

[Mitreya]

In the US jurors can acquit for any reason and aren't required to say what it was.

Yes, but I hear if you utter the words "jury nullification" during selection, you won't make it into the jury. Might actually be a good strategy if you want out.
Apparently you might even be accused of jury tampering for spreading the word http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02...

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

A panel of reasonable people will be able to interpret the meaning of the upskirt law

No, a panel of reasonable people will be told by the judge "this is what the law means, and you are to judge the facts only". Not many will understand that they're perfectly within their rights to acquit if they believe the law as written is wrong, or that the judge's interpretation is faulty. Others will come with the assumption that "he's in court, so he must be guilty of SOMETHING!" and vote for conviction based on that flawed premise.

NEVER assume that the jury will fix a bad law. Don't let it become law in the first place.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

And having your name associated with odious sexual crime, and losing your job, losing your friends, and maybe your family wont talk to you any more...

Re:no surprise

[murdocj]

Please do NOT come out of your parent's basement.

Re:No surprise

[murdocj]

Racists can also acquit criminals who are members of their own racial group. See OJ Simpson for example.

Re:no surprise

[AK Marc]

It's already a federal felony, and this law doesn't change this at all. At most, this law, as it says in the summary, is a misdemeanor, not a felony.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

>anyone who 'photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils' a person's sexual or intimate parts without consent should face a misdemeanor charge
Wouldn't that make the TSA terahertz "naked scanners" effectively illegal to use?

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

As a white guy, if I were on that jury I would have voted to acquit because there was all kinds of reasonable doubt about that case.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

There is the letter of the law, then there is the spirit of the law. In a properly governed society, the latter is the norm, and in your fictional-but-plausible scenario, the cop who you ended up talking to would realize that it was accidental and innocent, and nothing more would come of it.

Just like the guy who takes a leak outside and gets convicted and labeled as a sex offender? You mean like that?

Re:no surprise

[jklovanc]

How about you look at the actual law;

Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, the sexual or other intimate parts of a person under or around the person’s clothing to view or attempt to view the person’s sexual or other intimate parts when a reasonable person would believe that the person’s sexual or other intimate parts would not be visible to the public and without the person’s knowledge and consent,

Your scenario does not fit on 3 points:

with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity

Unless you hide your camera, you are in the clear.

under or around the person’s clothing

A bare chest has no clothing for the photograph to be under or around.

a reasonable person would believe that the person’s sexual or other intimate parts would not be visible to the public

A bare chest is obviously visible to the public

Re:no surprise

[AK Marc]

The problem is that if the cops ever *want* to get you, then they will interpret them exactly how you say is not normal.

I've been pulled over for DWB (driving while black), though I'm white. The law allows any cop to pull over anyone at any time "I thought your inspection sticker was expired" (though it was 2 months into a 12 month period). He "hides" on a cross street, and pulls over anyone that doesn't "fit in". In the day, that's black people. At night, that's someone in a car that doesn't fit in. I was in a 15 year old car in a nice neighborhood (college student at the time). Of course, finding out I'm a middle class white person and not a poor black, I was let go with an apology.

Of course, that was in a town that has been convicted of civil rights violations (rounding up minorities for "loitering" at bus stops so the white residents didn't have to see them).

But in my case, he had a full-proof excuse. It was dark and he could say "from my view, I couldn't tell whether your sticker was expired" though the nice Cadillac in front and brand new car behind me were unmolested and with the same inspection sticker as me. They teach cops how to have civil-rights-proof reasonable suspicion to harass anyone that doesn't fit in.

Re: no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

You can choose not to do the body scan. Giving you the advantage of receiving a nice massage by a skilled and attentive TSA masseuse.

Re:no surprise

[arth1]

I guess it would depend on the reason for showing it. I think parents should show and explain porn to their children before they inevitably get hold of it with no-one to explain. I'd rather them know that they're not to expect the monster penises they see in porn, and nor do most women really want said monster penises jammed up their rectum, and that it's perfectly fine to not act like the women in porn.

But showing porn to children in order to turn them or yourself on seems wrong.

Re:no surprise

[gIobaljustin]

Whether you think it's wrong or not is irrelevant to whether or not it should be illegal. I for one have a hard time swallowing the fact that showing certain images/videos to people of certain ages is illegal.

Re:No surprise

[Kjella]

Racists is only part of it, what with for example a misogynist who think that the drunk woman in a short skirt was "asking for" getting raped, of course he won't say it outright but that's why he won't convict. Particularly in cases with real victims I don't think it's fair to let one man rewrite the law, it makes it arbitrary and unfair for everyone. Why have a democracy and Congress and courts if any yokel on the jury can say "Meh, I don't like it" and acquit? That's not the rule of law anymore, it's some of the law some of the time if they like you or just hate the other guy. I know juries aren't a perfectly consistent tool as they evaluate evidence and witnesses differently but shouldn't that be a goal? Whether you go to jail or guilty men walk free shouldn't be just a dice toss of who sits on the jury.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

>anyone who 'photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils' a person's sexual or intimate parts without consent should face a misdemeanor charge

Wouldn't that make the TSA terahertz "naked scanners" effectively illegal to use?

Also ceiling-mounted surveillance cameras aimed downwards.

Re:No surprise

[interkin3tic]

It's worth noting that those fears about racism are probably based on the fact that that has definitely happened.

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, the jury's judgement is unimpeachable

A Jury's judgement of "not guilty" is unimpeachable (with the exceptions you mentioned). It's worth noting that a judge can vacate a verdict of guilty if the judge thinks the jury did a bad job. Not sure if that counts towards double jeopardy or not.

Re:No surprise

[sabri]

Apparently you might even be accused of jury tampering for spreading the word http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02...

I'd recommend you to include a link that explains why that particular case was dismissed (spoiler: the judge basically said: this is free speech).

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything can constitute "child porn" what about the sale flyers for K-mart or Walmart that have a young girl in a swimsuit or under wear? Or the mother or estranged husband that has pictures of there child in a swimsuit or underwear?

Before you roll your eyes, I'm saying while it is just pathetic to go around snapping "Upskirt" photos of any female, these laws lead to prosecutors abusing the laws, and law enforcement, there's a host of other agencies that could also abuse the law.

Using the first statement as an example, Lets say it is you that is facing a Jury, are going to use the argument "I am good person, not a criminal" excuse and after witnesses who claim to know you, friends, family, your going to trust a Jury? And that's if you can even afford a lawyer to fight the case and get you off the hook. Or having a lawyer file an appeal [which is really your best chance] to show a reasonable Judge there is no evidence of you collecting child porn!

And before that gets started your neighbors, and others within, and outside your job will start to shun you. And it only gets worse if the local press reports it. I know people like this, and there lives are ruined because a law some idiot created, which was intended for good was abused. And it doesn't matter if you were found not guilty, unless you live in some utopia neighborhood. And they have yet to change those laws, here is the excuse "well that's why we have juries, and appeals courts"

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

In a country where 46% of the people believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, can you really trust a jury to be rational 100% of the time?

Re:no surprise

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Here's what appears to be the relevant language from the statute (emphasis mine):

Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, the sexual or other intimate parts of a person under or around the person’s clothing to view or attempt to view the person’s sexual or other intimate parts when a reasonable person would believe that the person’s sexual or other intimate parts would not be visible to the public and without the person’s knowledge and consent, shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2 ½ years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.

So no, this doesn't appear to come even close to covering a hypothetical situation like the one you mentioned, where a topless 5-year-old just happens to be visible in a picture you're taking. You would have to have intended to do it on the sly, and what appears in the photograph would have to be something that a reasonable person thinks would not be visible.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

I got four letters for you:J-U-R-Y. A panel of reasonable people will be able to interpret the meaning of the upskirt law, and be able to differentiate between pervs on the subway and accidental photo bombs the beach. That's the whole point of juries and why they are such an important part of the justice system.

Whether you go to jail or not is obviously important but your life can be severely disrupted by police and prosecutors with nothing better to do.

http://jonathanturley.org/2009...

Re:no surprise

[Nephandus]

You're on the wrong planet then. This is a kill-the-icky sheepledom all 'round.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because clearly it would never be prosecuted. Not to mention, yeah maybe a jury would clear you... but do you really want to risk it vs. whatever plea they offer?

Right in my home town, a couple 15 year old girls were standing at the side of a busy road flashing their breasts to passing drivers. Obviously unaware of their age, a guy snapped a photo. He was arrested and charged with possession of a sexual performance by a minor... a serious felony. source.
Now obviously that charge was overreaching, but he wasn't exactly going to risk the consequences with a jury and plead guilty to a lesser charge and received administrative probation.

Re:No surprise

[sjames]

The last time I was in voir dire, the judge asked us to swear under oath that we would judge only the facts and not the law. When I indicated that I could not swear to that, I was excused from the jury.

Re:No surprise

[sjames]

It's worth noting that as long as there are juries, there can be nullification. The only exception is if the jury is just for show and knows it can get in trouble if it doesn't find the way the judge clearly wants it to.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, so you want to undermine the rule of law and institute mob justice. Great going. No thanks.

Re:No surprise

[sjames]

I have to say, reading some of the transcript destroyed any faith I ever had in the FBI or it's crime lab forever. The police revealed themselves to be little better than the criminals they pursue.

I have no idea to this day if Simpson did it or not, so I must give him the benefit of the doubt.

Re:no surprise

[CODiNE]

Yeah that's great. Take a photo of a toddler just as she yanks her dress over her head and you're a felon. "AHHHH!! DELETE!! DELETE!!!"

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you creating a system where the parts are required to do something that they often times cannot.

Re:No surprise

[PRMan]

Well, since all the evidence was tainted by rush to judgment and poor procedure and had to be thrown out, all that was left was Kato and the limo driver's testimonies. And that wasn't enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

Re:No surprise

[murdocj]

Yeah, all we know for sure what that someone killed the woman that OJ threatened to kill wearing OJ's shoes with OJ's hair with OJ's knife, and then OJ tried to flee while disguised. But other than that, yeah, not much evidence.

The other thing we know is that America is truly the land of equality where a rich black man can get away with murder just like a rich white man.

Re:no surprise

[Cordus Mortain]

Key word - consent. You could always not consent to be scanned - but that would result in you not getting on your plane.

Re:No surprise

[TapeCutter]

And that wasn't enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

And yet a guy in Texas was recently executed on nothing more than the testimony of a couple of people simply because the governor wanted to be president and saw an opportunity to prove he was "tough on crime". Of course he was nowhere near as rich and famous as OJ. With such inconsistent outcomes I have no idea why anyone in their right mind would support capital punishment

Re:no surprise

[kheldan]

Apparently you're not differentiating (or capable of differentiating) between something that happened accidentally (nude/partially nude small child in a place as public as the beach, while you happen to be snapping a photograph of a perfectly legit subject) and something that you're doing intentionally (public urination).

Re: no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if I have a nanny cam, hire a babysitter who is under 18, and she happens to get naked for whatever reason, I committed a felony?

Re:no surprise

[fyngyrz]

I got four letters for you:J-U-R-Y

I got some letters for you, too: Voir dire. This is the process wherein lawyers weed out all your peers in favor of compliant idiots. That's not what it's supposed to do, of course, but that's how it's used. It's then almost always followed by admonishment by the judge to the effect that the jury has to apply the law as written, with nothing at all about the jury's actual duty to evaluate the law -- in fact, if that's brought up, likely you'll have a mistrial.

If you go to court in the US, you can pretty much look forward to success in ratio with the money you spend on your lawyer, and how well your lawyer manages to pass that largesse along to the judge. And too bad if the judge thinks public opinion means more than your money.

Re: no surprise

[porges]

Possibly. Is it obviously true that I have a right to secretly videotape people "just to be safe", just because they're in my house and I have (or think I have) a good reason?

Re:No surprise

[zugmeister]

Why have a democracy and Congress and courts if any yokel on the jury can say "Meh, I don't like it" and acquit?

The system is organized so that you are judged by a jury of your peers who are representative of the views / opinions local to your region. While the "yokel" problem you referenced above has in fact occurred, the original idea is that the people will have the final say about weather or not they will suffer an unjust law to be executed.
BTW, it takes a whole jury of yokels to agree to get an acquittal. The most one can do is a hung jury.
P.S. Yes, I know it doesn't always work this way. Judges have been fighting jury nullification for a very long time. That doesn't make them right.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

first thats probably not a typo so much as a space that wasn't shown 2 1/2 years.
second so as long as the perv is openly video taping you it's OK?
third, clearly there is no expectation of privacy on the bus/train, regardless of the state of dress or undress.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you prove that the child wasn't the intended subject all along?

Re:no surprise

[sumdumass]

Oprah is posting on slashdot?

Vageejay.

The only other time I have ever heard that word was when flipping through the channels on afternoon and Oprah was on talking about someone's Vageejay.

Sadly, just when I thought it might be a new Howard Stern type format for her show, I was wrong. Fortunately, she was taken off the air after being arrested at the airport. I guess someone lifted up her skirt and they found 150 pounds of crack.

Re:no surprise

[sumdumass]

A jury in principle can ensure right from wrong. But the reality is that no one would ever consider what a jury might do in the months leading up to your trial when the prosecutor and the mom with a bug up her butt drags your name through the press as the perv and pedophile this law would claim you are.

So yes, a jury should be a save, but the cost of that save could be impassible. Imagine if you were a school teacher who took a pic of his girlfriend at the beech, you job would be almost lost and you would have to endure all sorts of humiliation and harassment just so a jury can say it isn't so. In the UK, after a series of reports on the news about pedophiles, I guess some locals torched a pediatrics office thinking they treated pedophiles. There is also a claim about a mob chasing a podiatrist thinking she was a pedophile or something.

Re:No surprise

[westlake]

This is often derided by those who fear that racist jurors will acquit criminals whose victims are a discriminated against group and praised by those who fear that the the overwhelming body of existing law can be used against pretty much anyone.

You don't have to look very far into our past to see how jury nullification really works.

Re:No surprise

[sumdumass]

Well, lets not forget the glove that didn't fit.

I mean why would someone have a pair of gloves that didn't fit, spend the time and effort to put them on, then go kill someone and lose a glove in order for the cops to find and claim they were yours.

Actually, I know why but on a jury cooped up in a hotel who didn't have access to the internet, hindsight of every arm chair quarterback picking over the case with information not introduced in court, and all, it simply didn't make sense.

Re:No surprise

[sumdumass]

Umm.. who was that and why didn't he get a fair trial complete with all the appeals and all every other criminal on death row gets?

Or are you simply embellishing the story a bit and those details will make it difficult to hold your statement to light?

I'm assuming you are talking about G.W. Bush. Here is another misdirected claim against him. People say he is racists because he didn't support hate crime legislation that was brought up after the dragging death of James Byrd in Texas. However, the fact of the matter was that Bush supported giving those responsible the death penalty which is somewhat already the most severe form of punishment our judicial system allows. He saw a hate crime spec as redundant and actual enforcement of existing law as the answer.

Re:no surprise

[sumdumass]

Yes.. In short, you would have to be dumb or crazy to go up against something so stacked against you on the hopes that 12 people might see things your way instead of the way the media has fed society for the 5 months leading up to your day in court.

Unless you have a good lawyer who is saying we got this beat, you are dumb or crazy to go against those odds no matter how innocent you are.

Re:no surprise

[sumdumass]

While I don't disagree with your statement, I just don't think it is right for a cop to stop someone because they weren't sure.

It seems to me that the cop should need some sort of positive notice or that they need to be sure you broke some law or ordinance in order for the police to use their police powers and detain you. Otherwise, they could be pulling you over in hopes that you did something wrong which is problematic with the entire constitutional rights thing and all.

So why I know what you say happens (I've always had long hair and was often pulled over because of it or because I was wearing a metal band t-shirt and the cops thought I was a druggie), I simply cannot see how even in a liberal version of a living document or a strict interpretation of the federal and even some state constitution, that this crap is allowed to happen. Just last summer, I saw a friends van pulled over and being searched. I called him because it seemed as if his kids were driving it (they are old enough). He came down and found out the cop never asked to search the van, just hand cuffed the kids (15 and 16) after pulling them over and started searching. When asked why he pulled them over, the cop claimed they made a left turn without signalling but there were no left turns on the route they were coming from and the kids said they never made a left. So the cop obviously made something up and thought because they were young he could get away with it. and outside of a couple question from my friend, he did.

Re:no surprise

[AK Marc]

In my case, I was also pulled over for DWW (driving while white). It was San Diego, Texas (a small town where the "nightlife" is to drive East 50 or so miles to the metropolis of Alice Texas and hang out at the Sonic). The town is almost 100% hispanic, and when I was in town fro Spring break, passing though, but staying with a friend from school, I was targeted as not fitting in. Pulled over for "weaving within my lane" which was 100% legal, last I heard. And impossible not to do, or prove you didn't do. He just checked me out and waved me on.

Illegal stop, but nothing you can ever do about it.

Re:No surprise

[TrollstonButterbeans]

And on Slashdot this asshat-ery gets a modded +5.

I dare someone in the real world to rely on the above advice.

Re:no surprise

[geminidomino]

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

You'd be mistaken

Re:no surprise

[gIobaljustin]

That's not dumb or crazy; it might just be that you have principles, unlike most people, who simply do whatever authority figures say.

Re:no surprise

[sumdumass]

You can still act dumb or crazy because of your principles.

I'm reminded of a story about a preacher in a flood who relied on principle too much. The town got news that the river was flooding and everyone should evacuate. Along came a family in a station wagon and said hop in preacher, we will take you to safety. The preacher said no, the lord with look after me. Well, the roads flooded and along came a man in a boat who said, hop in preacher, we will take you to safety. Again, the preacher said no, the lord will look after me. The flood waters were higher then the second story of the church and getting hirer when along came a helicopter. A man in the helicopter said hold on preacher, we will send someone down to put a harness on you then we will take you to safety. The preacher said, that's ok, go help someone else, the lord will take care of me. Well, finally the flood waters consumed the preacher and when entering heaven, he asked why the lord didn't take care of him. The reply was what do you mean, he sent 3 different people 3 different times (a car, a boat, a helicopter) and you refused them.

Sometimes principle has too high of a price.

Re:no surprise

[gIobaljustin]

You can still act dumb or crazy because of your principles.

It's possible, but if no one sticks up for their principles, nothing will change. Sticking up for your principles just means you're willing to take some risks. Personally, I wish we had more people who cared about principles; garbage like the NSA spying, the TSA, etc. would probably be gone.

Sometimes principle has too high of a price.

Other people can't decide that for you.

Re:no surprise

[sumdumass]

Well, what I was hoping the little story about the preacher would convey is that principles can be honored without it all going to the extreme. As if he would have taken the ride in the first place.

I agree about principles but think life would be so much better if the principles were argued before it resorts to facing jail time verses taking a plea. Often laws can be changed before it's abused or the abuse is noticed in practice. I was watching the ohio channel today and they were replaying a state supreme court case where one of the judges asked a prosecutor why the gun spec was added to a case and if it had to be there or if it was just a tool to entice a plea agreement. This should be very worrying when the state's highest court acknowledges laws that are "tools" to scare people into plea agreements instead of encouraging justice for all. The deck is highly stacked in these cases.

Re:No surprise

[gIobaljustin]

I would just play dumb to avoid getting thrown off. Unless you wanted to get excused, of course.

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well, since all the evidence was tainted by rush to judgment and poor procedure and had to be thrown out, all that was left was Kato and the limo driver's testimonies."

Re:No surprise

[sjames]

I don't care to lie under oath.

Re:No surprise

[gIobaljustin]

I don't care for people to be prosecuted under unjust laws. Besides, as long as you don't go around telling everyone why you did what you did, I don't think there's much they can do about it.

Re:no surprise

[TheCarp]

Well unless you want to sit them down in the bedroom and re-enact the sex education skit from the Meaning of Life there are not a lot of other options besides the drawings in biology text books. Then again, maybe not being a parent and not looking to teach anyone the birds and the beeds, I have totally missed the plethora of options...then again, even if it exists, I bet a lot of parents miss it too.

> nor do most women really want said monster penises jammed up their rectum

Maybe not monsters but, a significant number do enjoy having things....well jammed is maybe the wrong word.... never mind....

Re:no surprise

[kheldan]

Let me get this straight: You want me to prove a negative in an argument? Really? Go back to 4chan/b and leave me the fuck alone.

Re:no surprise

[Reziac]

So if I walk around with bright red clacking cameras on the tips of my shoes, I'm in the clear?

I'd bet not, wording of the law or not.

Re:no surprise

[jklovanc]

I'd bet not, wording of the law or not.

You probably are as it allows the people to avoid you and therefore not be photographed. Then there is the issue of showing that people would understand the the thing on you shoe was a camera. It is not the normal place for a camera.

Re: no surprise

[astar]

Relying on the jury system Is silly. First of all, the DA only wants a jury trial if it helps him get reelected. Otherwise it clogs up the underfunded court system. If you get there you really will get slammed if you try for jury nullification explicitly which is pretty much what one of the GGP thought was what he could rely upon. I suppose he looks like a solid upstanding sort. Probably can afford a good lawyer.

oh well. I have read of a local case where a family was out camping and one of their nude kids ran through the camera frame. So they did get off eventually.

Moving on. If you do refuse the plea bargain then when you are in court everyone is already mad at you because you are not playing by the rules. Now you get convicted. Better be deeply remorseful even if you were completely innocent.

yet the above description may be the best system we are able to put together and defending it may prevent it from getting worse

Re:no surprise

[niftymitch]

Here, you should RTFL:

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section105

Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils another person who is nude or partially nude, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, when the other person in such place and circumstance would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being so photographed, videotaped or electronically surveilled, and without that person’s knowledge and consent, shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 21/2 years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

I really hope that "21/2 years" is a typo on the Mass. legislature's website, and not the actual text of the law.

Please define partially nude!

Please define knowledge and consent.

Consider a celebrity at a photo shoot but your angle was
not expected.
Consider a celebrity photo of an individual found not to have
undergarments under a gown. All photos would have been of
an individual partially nude just not demonstrating this nudity.

Almost all paparazzi activity is covered by this....
The intent of paparazzi is exactly this...

21/2 is 10.5 years... or is it 2.5 years?

Re:no surprise

[lsatenstein]

So if I'm recording my girlfriend at the beach and some topless 5 year old girl wanders through the frame or happens to be in the background and her mom gets a bug up her ass about it... I'm charged with a felony? No thanks. If you don't want to chance it ending up on film, don't make it visible in public.

Take the picture on a nude beach in the south of France.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha! Anyone smart enough to realize they don't have to convict someone just because they broke the law would be tossed off the jury well before the trial started. The judge and both lawyers want sheep, so sheep they get.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Only 1 problem with juries, they are full of Americans.

Well, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuckin' naughty photons.

a person's sexual or intimate parts

Sounds subjective, as usual. Great.

Re:Well, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Are lips considered "sexual parts"? Are ears? Remember, a woman's body is an entire sexual playground.

Re:Well, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Bodies in general are, AC. No need to specify.

Re:Well, yeah

[sconeu]

If I take a picture, and a woman's bikini covered boobs happen to be in it, am I guilty?

Re:Well, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

That depend. Are you a man? If you are a man you are guilty.

Re:Well, yeah

[ColdWetDog]

Agreed. Are lips considered "sexual parts"? Are ears? Remember, a woman's body is an entire sexual playground.

Such definitions are typically covered in statute some place or another. Unfortunately you have to read the whole bill and associated references to figure it out. I'm certainly not going to do that for you, but you are welcome to amuse yourself.

Re:Well, yeah

[Stan92057]

Only a real lawyer has the answer. Here at Slashdot we are all armchair lawyers, that don't count lol

Re:Well, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't make inherently subjective terminology objective by giving the words separate definitions in the law that were determined by someone's opinions.

Re:Well, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

If I take a picture, and a woman's bikini covered boobs happen to be in it, am I guilty?

Good Christian morality says that you should be arrested for taking pictures of people, if they happen to be naked except for their clothing.

Age difference

[Etherwalk]

Age difference should matter when you're talking about people under 18. A sixteen-year-old who does this to another 16-year-old should be guilty of no more than a misdemeanor if an adult would be guilty of no more than a misdemeanor for the same behavior with another adult.

Re:Age difference

[Anonymous Coward]

That is true. I was thinking that this issue was resolved, but perhaps this was just a quick hack and the engineers should spend more time on it to provide a definitive and more appropriate code. After all, the case you mentioned is relevant.

And yes, you can probably treat law as a piece of software/code. If things don't work as intended (a law has a loophole or doesn't cover something you wanted to cover) you consider it a bug you want to fix. Then you work towards fixing the bug in the best way possible within an acceptable time.

Re:Age difference

[RJFerret]

Normally I'd agree, except this specifies non-consensual, and there's a societal desire to not produce child porn for the consumption of anyone, child, teen, or adult.

A 16-year old agreeing to such is apparently legal per this law.

Similarly, if it were permissible for children to photograph any age, then adults would simply coerce children to do the dirty work.

Re:Age difference

[gIobaljustin]

Similarly, if it were permissible for children to photograph any age, then adults would simply coerce children to do the dirty work.

So we end up in a situation where worthless pieces of trash (most people) kneejerk and ban everything to 'protect' crotch fruit. How mundane.

Re:Age difference

[AK Marc]

They can always make the argument that the 16 year old can't legally consent.

Re:Age difference

[wvmarle]

A 16yo doing this shouldn't be tried as an adult to begin with.

Re:Age difference

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll agree. one does not think "felon" when one thinks of little 7 year old Johnny hiding under the playground. Not that little Johnny should be trusted with a camera, but parents are dumb enough to give lil johnny an iPad....with a camera built in. Any adult, however, who TELLS little Johnny to go take those pictures...should be in a world of trouble.

Re:Age difference

[Etherwalk]

I'll agree. one does not think "felon" when one thinks of little 7 year old Johnny hiding under the playground. Not that little Johnny should be trusted with a camera, but parents are dumb enough to give lil johnny an iPad....with a camera built in. Any adult, however, who TELLS little Johnny to go take those pictures...should be in a world of trouble.

The adult would be considered the guilty party there under the laws of most if not all of the states--Little Johnny becomes the "innocent agent." (You could also charge it as conspiracy, which is a federal crime and adds five years onto the sentence, but it would be more likely to be prosecuted under the innocent agent model.)

Re:Age difference

[gzuckier]

This puts every mother who took a shapshot of her 2 year old in the bathtub in prison.

wow

[Yew2]

if only developers fixed glitches this fast.....or any other governments for that matter

Re:wow

[kylemonger]

When we get bug reports this good, we'll fix the bug this fast.

No exceptions for law enforcement or security?

[mark-t]

Interesting.

Re:No exceptions for law enforcement or security?

[RightwingNutjob]

The government you vested with special authority by your consent (either by voting or not leaving) gets to do things you can't. Imagine that.

Re:No exceptions for law enforcement or security?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no, LEO's can be as pervy as ever as can clothing store workers, apparently.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section105

(d) This section shall not apply to a merchant that electronically surveils a customer changing room, provided that signage warning customers of the merchant’s surveillance activity is conspicuously posted at all entrances and in the interior of any changing room electronically surveilled.

(e) This section shall not apply to a law enforcement officer acting within the scope of the officer’s authority under applicable law, or by an order or warrant issued by a court.

Re:No exceptions for law enforcement or security?

[mark-t]

What if I voted for a government different from the one that got in?

Re:No exceptions for law enforcement or security?

[fulldecent]

"(e) This section shall not apply to a law enforcement officer acting within the scope of the officer’s authority under applicable law, or by an order or warrant issued by a court."

Re:No exceptions for law enforcement or security?

[mark-t]

Ah.... thanks. I didn't see the full text of the bill anywhere and was only going off of the summary mentioned in the article (and duplicated in the summary, above)

Re:No exceptions for law enforcement or security?

[RightwingNutjob]

Then if its bad enough, you leave. Otherwise you grumble under your breath (or better yet, cogently and out loud) and wait for the next election cycle.

Re:No exceptions for law enforcement or security?

[mark-t]

What you are referring to, then, is called "implied consent", and is legally quite distinguishable from consent, which does require explicit permission, and it's extremely different from "informed consent", which goes at least one step further than than that by requiring that such consent is only applicable when the consequences of consent have been explicitly clarified beforehand. Informed consent, in this case, would be not only knowing about the photographer and the camera, and agreeing to have such pictures taken, but also being made aware of exactly what the photographer was going to do with such pictures (and if the photographer does something that exceeds the boundaries of what was explained, then that would negate informed consent).

As it turns out, however, the text of the law does contain exactly the exceptions that were not evident from either the summary or the article, which I did not know until somebody else who responded to me pointed out.

Re:No exceptions for law enforcement or security?

[AK Marc]

I don't consent. So i don't vote, and did leave, but I'm on the hook for a lifetime of taxes. I could renounce citizenship, but that makes me legally below a non-citizen, and is revocable by the US, so it's a net loss on all counts.

Re:No exceptions for law enforcement or security?

[Kalriath]

Yes, but if you renounce your citizenship, you're required to have citizenship somewhere else first. At which point, your new-found patron nation is required to defend you.

Re:No exceptions for law enforcement or security?

[AK Marc]

You don't have to have citizenship elsewhere to renounce, but as your renunciation isn't binding, it can be revoked as it shouldn't be accepted if it leaves one stateless (by international treaty the US is party of).

And there isn't much to defend when the US rejects "routine" visa applications solely to punish ex-citizens as a matter of punitive policy, as is their right, even if evil. Yes, the US will block you from going home for your parent's funeral if you renounced. Or visiting new grand children. That, and they can still charge you for all "missed" taxes, and arrest you if you ever transit US. You are better off simply failing to file taxes forever and never renouncing. Renouncing gets you on a number of "bad" lists.

Has this been a large problem?

[ATMAvatar]

Despite the prior news story about a guy getting off for upskirt photos, this law seems like a solution looking for a problem. Has upskirt photography been such a large problem in Massachusetts that a law was required?

I would have thought basic social pressures and shaming (lets admit - people doing this *are* particularly creepy) would do a better job at limiting the number of offenders, and the rest would do it anyways.

With a law on the books, particularly one with the possibility for felony charges, I wonder how many times we are going to read about misapplication of the law. Do you technically run afoul of the law anytime you take a photo where a woman in a skirt is elevated from your current location, such as a place with an elevated walkway? Do you risk arrest for taking a picture in a location with an escalator or glass-walled elevator like many shopping malls? even if you are close to neither one?

Re:Has this been a large problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Phrasing.

Re:Has this been a large problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the past, the solution to this was simple. People were selected out of this behavior quite simply - if seen doing it other people would beat them up. Now though it is illegal to do that. So you get these creepers who are emboldened by the fact that nobody is going to slug them - and boom, you need a new law. Honestly a couple of right hooks are what these folks need and they won't do it again.

Re:Has this been a large problem?

[misexistentialist]

It's a progressive state, so more government regulation is always better.

Re:Has this been a large problem?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Politicians leap into action!

Remember when that 11 year old girl crashed a plane on takeoff because her idiot dad had her take off in a storm? Congress wasted no time!

Re:Has this been a large problem?

[letherial]

i could think of quite a bit of problems that a 'couple of right hooks' would solve

Now that i think about it, whats the point of any law anyways? it should all be social justice, mob rule thats what i say, fuck the goverment. People in general should be allowed to just decide at any given moment what is a fair punishment and if somone is guilty or not, facts, evidence, fair trail...all that is just pointless when anyone can just look at a moment in a situation and just know what to do. couple of right hooks, maybe blow his brains out, or burn him...all these things can just be decided by whoever is around at the moment of emotional impulse

Ya...i totally like your idea

Re:Has this been a large problem?

[nbauman]

Like Marilyn Monroe walking over a subway grate.

Pervs click here http://ibnlive.in.com/news/mar...

Re:Has this been a large problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because regulation and zealous prosecution and persecution of personal behavior NEVER happens in Republican states. They never try to tell you what and when you can drink or grow or inhale or anything like that, and they sure as hell never use zoning laws to effectively outlaw businesses they don't like, and....

At least it can be argued that this "crime" has a potential victim, unlike a lot of the conservative morality agenda.

Re:Has this been a large problem?

[jklovanc]

Read the whole law before drawing conclusions.

Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, the sexual or other intimate parts of a person under or around the person’s clothing to view or attempt to view the person’s sexual or other intimate parts when a reasonable person would believe that the person’s sexual or other intimate parts would not be visible to the public and without the person’s knowledge and consent,

Most people take innocent photographs while holding their cameras near eye level where the camera is visible to everyone around. Your scenario fails the " with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity" clause. You would also have to get photos of her "sexual or other intimate parts [not]visible to the public". Then there is the most important point;

Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils,

If the photograph is from a distance and/or not centered on the subject it would be simple to show that the act was not willful.

Re:Has this been a large problem?

[AK Marc]

I could put a camera in my shoe that would be invisible to a passing glance. How do you shame someone for doing something you don't (and can't) know they are doing?

Re:Has this been a large problem?

[Stan92057]

To answer your question you need to contact a real lawyer. But common since would say if your taking that picture of the girls underwear while going up an escalator yes you broke the law.Unless she has full knowledge your taking the picture. And i guess you have to take a little more care taking pictures of escalators. Ive ridden hundreds of escalators and never once was able to see up a womens dress that's just me though.

Re:Has this been a large problem?

[hey!]

It's a progressive state, so more government regulation is always better.

Well, we do not require transvaginal ultrasounds for women who want to get abortions.

The difference between a progressive state and a conservative state isn't regulation. It's *what* is regulated.

Re:Has this been a large problem?

[Shakrai]

Well, we do not require transvaginal ultrasounds for women who want to get abortions.

You also make it virtually impossible for the average citizen to carry a firearm for self-defense, an activity that's allowed with very few questions in 43 of the 50 States. You can't even legally carry pepper spray in MA without a license, something that I'm pretty sure is allowed without a license in every other State in the Union.

Thanks, but no thanks. Plenty of States to choose from that don't regulate self-defense or abortion.

Re:Has this been a large problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of it from the Victims point of view.

Would you liked to be chased to a police officer, some man following you with a camera and taking pictures up your skirt, telling you "I'm gonna masturbate to these later!"

Would you feel it's just for the cop to say "Sorry, he's allowed to take the photos, he's allowed to say the creepy shit because of the first amendment, and all I can do is tell him to stay away."

I think we needed the law. There is no good reason to have a mirror on your shoes, or your cell phone on a telescoping rod.

Re:Has this been a large problem?

[NoKaOi]

Despite the prior news story about a guy getting off for upskirt photos, this law seems like a solution looking for a problem. Has upskirt photography been such a large problem in Massachusetts that a law was required?

In short, yes, it's been a problem in general for a while, enough so that camera phones are have been required for about 5 years by federal law (the Camera Phone Predator Alert Act) to make a noise when they take a picture to make it harder to sneak an up skirt photo on the subway.

Do you technically run afoul of the law anytime you take a photo where a woman in a skirt is elevated from your current location, such as a place with an elevated walkway? Do you risk arrest for taking a picture in a location with an escalator or glass-walled elevator like many shopping malls? even if you are close to neither one?

Assuming you mean somebody accidentally captured an up skirt photo in the frame, then no. Not only would there be no criminal intent in that case, but according to TFA "The legislation says anyone who tries to photograph another person's sexual or intimate parts without that person's consent..." so there was no trying involved in that case (of course, the article could just be worded poorly, but there would still be no criminal intent).

Re:Has this been a large problem?

[tuxgeek]

I call this concept "Frontier Justice"
Someone rapes your daughter? Fsck the courts, hunt down and kill the bastard!

On topic, some sick fuck out there running around taking upskirt photos in public places? Yep, a couple good solid right hooks to the face by every male around would do wonders to curb such socially-deviant behavior.

Re:Has this been a large problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mommy, Little Johnny snuck under the desk to take pictures of my underwear and put them on the internet"
"The little monster! I'm going right over there and talk to his parents!"
"No, I fooled him, I didn't wear any underwear."

Re:Has this been a large problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't even have laws regarded what gender can insert what convex object into which orifice of which gender.

Re:Has this been a large problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when that 11 year old girl crashed a plane on takeoff because her idiot dad had her take off in a storm? Congress wasted no time!

Wait, do you have upskirt photos of her?

Re:Has this been a large problem?

[hey!]

We're tied for third lowest homicide rate in the country, so why would I want to carry a firearm? Our rate of *total* homicide is 1/4 the rate of *accidental* firearms in Florida, even though our firearm ownership rate is 1/2.

Our accident rate per gun owner is half, because we require gun purchasers to take a basic firearms safety course. That's not so onerous. A 4 hour course with an NRA certified instructor, which costs around $100. It's a *little* intrusive, but so is having the guy in the next apartment negligently discharge his handgun in a cleaning accident.

Re:Has this been a large problem?

[misexistentialist]

Removing regulations against evil is more like establishing regulations to protect it. So you have regulations limiting protests at clinics, regulations requiring taxpayers to pay for abortions. Ideally you'd have regulations requiring abortions, but that would sort of conflict with regulations sanctioning gay marriage.

Re:Has this been a large problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Women know we can't get justice from the courts. I don't advise this at all, but it's fun to imagine women killing the guys who do this, video them dying, and put the videos up on youtube! LOL!

Re:Has this been a large problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sad that the "but what about muh liburteez" crowd can't be bothered to rate up one of the few actually informative comments in this discussion. Nope, it's impossible that the law might actually be written to criminalize what it's actually criminalizing, and not the scenarios that have absolutely zero chance of making it to a prosecutor's desk even if the law WERE poorly written.

Re:Has this been a large problem?

[Shakrai]

We're tied for third lowest homicide rate in the country, so why would I want to carry a firearm?

I don't care about what you want to do, I care about what I can do. Nobody forces you to carry a firearm if you live in any of the gun-friendly States.

Re:Has this been a large problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully the courts aren't useless in protecting against violent thugs like you then. Assaulting harmless photographers.
Dont want people to see your bald head, wear a hat. Dont want people to see your knickers, wear some pants idiot.

this is what the government is for

[superwiz]

With all the talk of "gridlock", it's there so that law is not used to enforce ideas that are not clearly shared by the majority of the population. When something clearly needs to be made into law, there is no gridlock. This thing took 2 days to go from "oh, shit I can't believe it's legal" to "there is a law to stop this now."

Re:this is what the government is for

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't have grid lock in the Massachusetts state house because Republicans are a very small minority and can not block legislation.

Re:this is what the government is for

[HornWumpus]

Hence you are fucked.

Re:this is what the government is for

[misexistentialist]

No this is what the "skort" is for, which AFAIK was not invented by the Democratic Party

Re:this is what the government is for

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all. It only happens in those very rare cases where business interests don't come into play, and even then mostly only for moral issues where we could probably stand to think things over for a couple of days at least, before we hastily scrawl down something that will cause more problems than they solve.

No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, jurors interpret the law? I thought they only decided if the law was broken.

TSA Beware

[Anonymous Coward]

Any airports or ports in Mass?

If so TSA beware, imaging my junk without my express permission is now a felony in Massachusetts.

Re:TSA Beware

[Anonymous Coward]

See another /.'ers post:

"(e) This section shall not apply to a law enforcement officer acting within the scope of the officerâ(TM)s authority under applicable law, or by an order or warrant issued by a court."

It's quite humorous and distressing that the TSA can get away with photography crimes much worse than the upskirters but somehow that's okay because of the evil terrrists.

Re:TSA Beware

[Anonymous Coward]

The question is, can you claim that you were coerced into taking the full body scan? If you don't let them take pictures of your junk you have to submit to physical groping. You don't have a choice to avoid humiliation no matter which way you go. Therefore, it should be a felony because you were forced to be humiliated in order to exercise your right to freedom of movement.

Re:TSA Beware

[Anonymous Coward]

This does bring up some interesting points. Unless the perv photos actual 'sexual organs', then really all he has done is take a photo of clothing, or at worst underwear. I have seen quite a bit of underwear which has much more coverage than many bathing suits. So if all he has done is take an image of clothing or what is effectively a bathing suit, is that illegal? If so, what of all the security cameras which take photos of the same?

Re:TSA Beware

[Anonymous Coward]

Any airports or ports in Mass?

If so TSA beware, imaging my junk without my express permission is now a felony in Massachusetts.

Ha! Always trying to beat the experts who already thought of everything. You missed the very simple "expectation of privacy" clause in that law waiting for just your kind of response. You won't be the last to fail this test. Next!

Re:TSA Beware

[blindseer]

TSA agents are not law enforcement, they have no authority to arrest.

Re:TSA Beware

[Anonymous Coward]

Any airports or ports in Mass?

If so TSA beware, imaging my junk without my express permission is now a felony in Massachusetts.

That's a stupid comparison.

Re:TSA Beware

[Anonymous Coward]

you must not have read the fine print on your airline ticket. You have already given express permission just by purchasing the ticket.

Read this

[Anonymous Coward]

You Commit Three Felonies a Day.

If I look closely at you and your life, I will find something to incriminate you.

I have NO doubt what-so-ever.

So, about this being a "slippery-slope absolutist"?

You know this is a bad law

[Snotnose]

Considering it took less than 24 hours to make this law you know it's a heaping pile of garbage. It takes time to craft a good law, more than 24 hours.

Re:You know this is a bad law

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really, similar laws were passed in New York and Florida, many moons ago, and are public record.

There are things you can use Florida as a bad example for, but not to my knowledge, this particular law. Even if so, it's not hard to learn from them.

Re:You know this is a bad law

[nbauman]

Yes brilliant. The prosecution was thrown out by the courts because the law was badly written, so they pass another law without hearings, and without giving lawyers a chance to look over it and figure out how to get it right this time.

Re:You know this is a bad law

[jklovanc]

The initial arrest was in 2010 and the current ruling was an appeal. It is quite possible the this law has been in the works for a couple of years, starting at when the case was appealed. It is quite possible that the lawmakers were waiting to see if the current law was sufficient before introducing changes. Why pass a law that is already covered under current law?

Re:You know this is a bad law

[jklovanc]

You have no idea how many lawyers looked at the law. It could have been worked on for years starting at the time the appeal was files. Do you really think that people who write laws only show them to lawyers at public hearings? Most laws are written by lawyers. The legislators just pass them. Sure some laws have loopholes but laws are not written in a vacuum.

Re:You know this is a bad law

[nbauman]

A democracy works in public.

If you're going to pass a law that will give prosecutors the power to put people in jail and mess up their lives, you should have public hearings where you tell everybody what you're going to do and let them bring up any objections or improvements that you may not have thought of. And in this law there are many.

A democracy doesn't work in secret.

Re:You know this is a bad law

[jklovanc]

A democracy doesn't work in secret.

I don't see how a public vote is considered secret. I vote in people to make day to day decisions that I would make. Voting for a bill that clarifies this kind of privacy violation is exactly why I vote for my representative. I do not need to have input on every law made. I vote for people who think like me. If they deviate too far I vote for someone else next time.

And in this law there are many.

Have you actually read the law or just the summary? Do you have improvements? If so, what are they? I have read the law and it actually looks pretty good to me.

Re:You know this is a bad law

[nbauman]

This is the ridiculous part:

Whereas, The deferred operation of this act would tend to defeat its purpose, which is to strengthen forthwith the laws relative to the expectation of privacy of one’s person, therefore it is hereby declared to be an emergency law, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public convenience.

How is this an emergency?

An emergency is when terrorists attack the World Trade Center, or when a storm is going to flood a city, or when an epidemic is spreading across the country.

Creeps taking upskirt pictures on the subway is not an emergency.

There was no reason to pass this bill overnight. They could have dealt with it slowly and carefully and made sure it wouldn't lead to problems.

You're giving a prosecutor the power to put somebody in jail for 2 1/2 years.

You're also giving a prosecutor the power to bully someone out of exercising his constitutional right to a trial by threatening to give him a long prison sentence if he does go to trial.

We know prosecutors have abused the law in the past.

We also know that there have been hysterical think-of-the-children prosecutions of parents, including professional photographers, who have taken innocent pictures of their children.

I think there's a good chance that legitimate photographers could get caught up in this law.

Why should this get passed as an emergency law? Why can't they write it as slowly and carefully as they write other laws?

Re:You know this is a bad law

[jklovanc]

Where did that quote come from? Please cite it correctly.

The major flaw in your rant is that the accused also has a lawyer who can call bullshit at any bullying tactics.

I think there's a good chance that legitimate photographers could get caught up in this law.

Have you read the actual law? How would a professional photographer who does not conceal their camera get caught in this law?

Why can't they write it as slowly and carefully as they write other laws?

Because it is a simple modification of a current law that is agreed upon by everyone and effects very few people. The whole, very costly, very time consuming process does not apply in all cases.

Re:You know this is a bad law

[nbauman]

That quote came from your link to the law at malegislature.gov. Please read your own links.

Re:You know this is a bad law

[jklovanc]

Still don't understand how to put an href into a post? lol.
And you answered none of my questions to clarify you speculations. I will repeat the most important one;

How would a professional photographer who does not conceal their camera get caught in this law?

Re:You know this is a bad law

[gzuckier]

“History is made at night. Character is what you are in the dark.”

Re:You know this is a bad law

[nbauman]

And you answered none of my questions to clarify you speculations. I will repeat the most important one;

How would a professional photographer who does not conceal their camera get caught in this law?

Prosecutors have done stupider things.

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know every possible problem that can come up with these laws, but a defense lawyer who has handled these cases could come up with objections. They should have been allowed to testify.

Laws shouldn't be easy to pass. Putting somebody in jail for 2 1/2 years shouldn't be easy.

Re:You know this is a bad law

[jklovanc]

That assumes the law was written only by prosecutors. Many lawyers have been both in their careers. How do you know that this law was not written with the input of many prosecution and defense lawyers. I am just calling you an your assumptions. All input does not have to be through a public forum. You seem fixated on the time between introduction and passage. You have no idea how long they have actually been working on or who they talked to about the law.

Re:You know this is a bad law

[nbauman]

Yes it does have to go through a public forum.

Judges will often go back to the legislative record to interpret a law. If there was no public forum, there was no legislative record.

In the age of digital cameras ....

[King_TJ]

How would this even be an issue? When you shoot video, do you irresponsibly just upload it to the Internet for public viewing, immediately, without so much as previewing what you filmed first?

I've always assumed that 80% of the work of recording video is the editing you do AFTER you're captured the initial footage!

Re:In the age of digital cameras ....

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly does editing or uploading have to do with it?

Re:In the age of digital cameras ....

[ColdWetDog]

How would this even be an issue? When you shoot video, do you irresponsibly just upload it to the Internet for public viewing, immediately, without so much as previewing what you filmed first?

I've always assumed that 80% of the work of recording video is the editing you do AFTER you're captured the initial footage!

You haven't watched You Tube much, have you?

Re:In the age of digital cameras ....

[Anonymous Coward]

And speaking of Youtube, I've seen Wifi compatible cameras that offer to auto-upload video to youtube. I don't know how they implement this but recall it was discussed here as a potential defense against bad policemen who think destroying camera evidence still works... as if we were still in the days of film roll. This was way before Google glass too.

Such clear wording!

[SuricouRaven]

"the sexual or other intimate parts"

Re:Such clear wording!

[Anonymous Coward]

So do not take a picture of your girl friend in a bikini! That is how clear it is.

Re:Such clear wording!

[RJFerret]

Interestingly, leaves the determination of legality up to the subject, rather than the overt act: wear panties, no crime; go bare, gotcha'!

Re:Such clear wording!

[Maxo-Texas]

also the length of the skirt in question.

and if the wind blows the skirt up while you are taking a picture already.

Or the lady in question falls down and exposes themselves.

Re:Such clear wording!

[_xeno_]

That's a term that they define earlier in the law, and they're quite clear:

"Sexual or other intimate parts", human genitals, buttocks, pubic area or female breast below a point immediately above the tip of the areola, whether naked or covered by clothing or undergarments.

Well, maybe not "quite clear" but it's not like "sexual or other intimate parts" is the phrase that determines the meaning of the law.

Re:Such clear wording!

[SuricouRaven]

So the media report introduced inaccuracies in their summarisation. Nothing new there. I should have seen that one.

Still poor though, as the 'covered by clothing' part, combined with modern teenage fashions, means a lot of young women are now going around in such a manner that any picture of them is now one stop short of child porn.

Re:Such clear wording!

[PRMan]

No more photos at the beach at any time...

Not sure I agree with that ....

[King_TJ]

If a law is made this quickly, it could ALSO mean it just seems like such a common sense thing to the people involved, there's really nothing to argue about.

Personally, I think I'd rather have legislation made this way (flawed though it may be) than people passing multiple hundred page long bills that NOBODY could read through and fully understand before they're voted on.

Simple, quickly passed legislation can also be easily understood by juries and amended, as needed. The massive stuff with hundreds of hidden side-effects just catches people by surprise, time and time again, for decades to come.

Re:Not sure I agree with that ....

[nbauman]

It could but it usually doesn't.

What you see is a lot of judges writing, "This law is clearly unfair and was not intended to apply in this situation, but much as I hate to, I'm forced to follow the law, and sentence you to ten years in jail."

A law making it illegal to photograph the "intimate parts" of women and children in public. What could go wrong? http://www.shutterstock.com/pi...

Actually, in Massachusetts and a few other states, there were laws requiring photo processors to turn photos over to the police if they showed children in a state of undress that was defined very broadly.

There were many cases of parents, including professional photographers, who were turned in by their developing labs because they had taken nude photos of their children. One case involved a family camping trip in the woods.

Sometimes a professional photographer would take hundreds of candid photos of her children, and the prosecutors would take one photo, out of context, which showed a toddler with her legs open, and prosecute them for it.

And no, the prosecutors weren't reasonable. They insisted on plea bargains which would have made the parent a sexual predator. It can easily cost you $30,000 to hire a defense lawyer. People are forced to sell their homes.

So no, it's stupid to pass a law overnight without thinking it out first.

It's stupid to do anything without thinking. That's sort of the definition of stupid.

Re:Not sure I agree with that ....

[mvdwege]

A law making it illegal to photograph the "intimate parts" of women and children in public. What could go wrong? [Link to photograph of 'Manneken Pis' in Brussesl]

Yes, because a prohibition on the wilful taking of photographs of intimate parts of living human beings is the same as a prohibition on photographing statues.

Do you have to work at being this moronic, or does it come naturally?

Re:Not sure I agree with that ....

[gzuckier]

Well, at least this time they took pains to make it gender neutral, it is now equally illegal to take upskirt photos of an adult male.
Probably looking for the Scottish tourist business.

Re:Not sure I agree with that ....

[Reziac]

Compare this to the legal perception of kiddie porn, which has been expanded to include drawings where no actual children are involved, and you can see why the other poster voiced this concern.

Re:Not sure I agree with that ....

[mvdwege]

The day an art book containing reproductions of renaissance paintings with naked cherubs in them gets pulled for kiddie porn is the day I can see this concern. Until then it's just the usual libertard ranting.

indecent photographs

[nurb432]

i hope they defined indecent or they are still in the same boat

Definitions

[Anonymous Coward]

What does secretly mean? Is it a hidden camera or a camera that just didn't get noticed? How is it legal for a store owner to video tape the changing rooms? And what form does consent constitute, verbal, written, a smile? WTF, seems like a-lot of huge gaps and issues are in this can of worms!

Re:Definitions

[AK Marc]

The previous law covered changing room video. This was just a narrowly crafted law to address a single missed case.

Without a public hearing?

[flogger]

Welcome to modern politics. Politicians do whatever they want and don;t need to consult the public at all. And when motivated enough, these politicians can pass all sorts of legislation in a day. In the recent past Illinois lawmakers introduced a bill requiring teachers to teach until they are 67; passed the bill in both house and senate; had the bill signed by the governor. All of this in one single day. Teachers union, was shocked and has been fighting this ever since, but since it is "the law" they don;t have a lot to go on. Everyone else in Illinois has been on pins and needles knowing that the government can in a day vote your career into misery.

Re:Without a public hearing?

[Anonymous Coward]

The teachers are going to have to work until 67, just like the rest of us? No wonder their union is upset.

Re:Without a public hearing?

[_xeno_]

Welcome to modern politics. Politicians do whatever they want and don;t need to consult the public at all.

Meh, I'm not sure that really applies in this case. The law that was passed is basically a patch. And, like so many laws, I mean that quite literally: it's a list of insertions and deletions into the existing legal code.

Basically the Supreme Judicial Court said that a certain activity that was clearly intended to fall under the law didn't, because of the way the law was written. So the legislature fixed the wording of the law.

All the public debate had already happened, this was just a "bug fix," so to speak.

So while I'm not going to claim that there are definite issues of legislatures ignoring their constituents and sneaking laws through as rapidly as possible to avoid public debate on them (hi, Obamacare!), this really isn't a case of that.

Re:Without a public hearing?

[Reziac]

I would guess the reason it went through so fast is because some legislator was themselves a 'victim'.

I'm reminded of a dangerous intersection where I used to live... it stayed that way for decades despite numerous accidents, until the mayor's wife got broadsided there. The intersection was altered within weeks (not really for the better -- now instead of a dangerous crossing, you had to go half a mile down and make a U-turn to get to it. But, hey, no more broadsides!)

Re:Without a public hearing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, why should anyone have good benefits if YOU don't have them? Of course, slave laboring children in Indonesia can also say that. Why should you be entitled to more than $.30 an hour? Or be entitled to work less than 80 hours a week in a hell hole of a workplace, where you have to sleep too, and are repeatedly raped by your boss? You greedy bastard!

The capitalists sure have a stick up your ass, don't they? They can wave you guys around like a puppet: "See, we all believe that capitalism is a good thing! Unions are BAD!".

"videotapes a person's intimate parts"

[Anonymous Coward]

This is great news for people with "wardrobe malfunction" while on camera. Not only do they get media attention, they can also sue the studios for it.

CBS had a better headlinne

[tomhath]

CBS News had a better headline

Massachusetts lawmakers crack down on "upskirt" photos

That's Fark quality.

They must have, right?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

"Before I vote on this here law," drawled the Boston polit...sorry hold on.

"Before I vote on this heah law," Kennedied the Boston politician, "I'm goin-guh to need to see some of these so-called 'up her skirt' photo-garaffs to make shua they are a vile as suggested. Good. Ok thank you. I will be busy studying them at home. Hold my calls."

Always on devices

[Anonymous Coward]

So much for them...

person's sexual or intimate parts

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a persons face is the most "sexual or intimate part"s

Harassment

[Anonymous Coward]

It may or may not be "sex harassment", but it's clearly a form of harassment in my view.

dumb-o-crats

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians, especially Democrats, love to stir the pot and make new laws, hoping to paint themselves as effective. Especially laws to protect "the weak" -- women and children. Oh pluck those heartstrings, we cannot let panty pics degrade our civilization!

Re:dumb-o-crats

[Dominare]

So... you're in favor of this sort of thing? I can't quite figure out what you're upset about. Do you even know?

The 'State', of course, is excluded.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did such laws not originally exist? The question is essential, the answer very disturbing.

Under the PRINCIPLE of English law, which is mostly the basis of Law in lands derived from England, like the USA, laws apply equally to citizens and 'agents' of the State, like police. The reason laws against covert photography were missing was because, until very recently, such laws would also apply to people working for the State, and governments did NOT want their own people limited by such laws.

Things have changed. Since the 1980s, the sheeple have been subject to non-stop propaganda attacks that define a new "you and them" understanding, where the State is understood to be the MASTER of the sheeple, not its servant. When enough sheeple took it for granted that the State acted as if it were "above the Law of Man", those in power could exploit this new mindset to the max.

Now, the vast majority of sheeple see no issue with a law that bans THEM from all kinds of acts that, if done by an employee of the State, will attract no penalty.

So, your school can provide laptops to your children to take home, SPECIFICALLY for the covert purpose of video recording your children in their own bedrooms at all times, and when this program is revealed, the highest courts of the USA declare such acts completely legal. And not legal in the sense that someone had 'forgotten' to create a law describing such as a crime. NO- legal in the sense that the State, and those that the State employs, are above the Laws that control you, the sheeple.

Look had broadly the new, UNCONSTITUTIONAL (because the new law involved no public consultation) law is defined. It is a classic 'catch all' that allows ANYONE engaged in public photography to be arrested on suspicion. YOU wanted a law punishing pervs who were obviously sticking a camera up a woman's skirt. What you got is a law that fires first, and asks questions later.

Take a photo of a child (which is scarily defined as even a 17-year old) in a swimsuit in a public venue, and you've broken this law. You MIGHT win in court, but the act of taking such a photo is certainly grounds for arrest.

Using a camera to take a photograph of a full dressed women without her consent is now also grounds for arrest. WHY? Because your INTENT may be infringing- you may have removed the IR filter (or be using a camera sensitive to IR), so that IR transparent clothing 'vanishes' on the recorded image, revealing the 'intimate parts' that make your act of photography a crime under this new law. Neither the woman nor the arresting officer can prove you are NOT doing this by looking at your camera. And unlike court, a police person is allowed to follow a "guilty until proven innocent" approach if they have any reasonable grounds to suspect guilt.

Why would Massachusetts want such an over-reaching and catch-all version of this law? Do I REALLY have to ask? They stomp all over your rights, in the name of public decency, while codifying their ability to do the very thing this new law is supposed to prevent. Will Bill Gates NSA spy platform, the Xbox One, suddenly become illegal in children's bedrooms in this state? Hahahahahahaha. Most of you sheeple are so thick, you fall over yourselves to praise Gates for helping create a real-life '1984' world.

Re:The 'State', of course, is excluded.

[ColdWetDog]

I think you should spend more time working on your own website

Re:The 'State', of course, is excluded.

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus 1.

"State is understood to be the MASTER of the sheeple, not its servant"

Re:The 'State', of course, is excluded.

[richardkettle4]

Wow, such original thinking. 'Sheeple'. Law of Man' (what that?). My mind cannot take such originality. Us mortals cannot comprehend such amazingly new concepts. Apparently, we a 'thick' Your solution? Dogmatic language and personal abuse.. stunning! Why has nobody thought of this before? So, tell us, all knowing one, your solution?

Re:The 'State', of course, is excluded.

[gzuckier]

Of course, both parties can agree that when done by a corporation, any degree of intrusion into a person's privacy of any sort is quite acceptable.

Re:The 'State', of course, is excluded.

[gzuckier]

"The reason laws against covert photography were missing " was because the law lags behind technology quite a bit, generally. There have certainly been plenty of laws against covert voice recording, despite your (not untrue) belief that "such laws would also apply to people working for the State, and governments did NOT want their own people limited by such laws." Agents of the state could not willy-nilly listen in to phone calls (legally anyway) without demonstrating to the judiciary that you were in pursuit of specific information related to a specific criminal case. Of course, all that goes out the window now that we realize that Arabs and/or Muslims are having conversations freely behind our backs.

My random reading of the newspaper for the past few years encountered several cases where a camera hidden in a bathroom or somewhere could not result in prosecution of the pervert involved, since there was no law against it, and they could only be prosecuted if there was an audio track so that the anti-eavesdropping laws applied.

"No matter how intrusive, they say, video voyeurism is typically not illegal." [ca. 1998] http://articles.courant.com/19...

"Nearly all audio recording without consent of one or all parties is unlawful. Recording audio is very different from video, and there are definite federal and state laws prohibiting surreptitious recording and monitoring of audio interactions. These laws are taken extremely seriously by authorities and failure to adhere to them could result in serious consequences." http://www.jlmmerchandise.com/...

What about upskirt selfies?

[X10]

I know, most of you can't do that, but would that be a misdemeanor?

Re:What about upskirt selfies?

[Reziac]

What was that case where some underage girl sent naked pics of herself to her boyfriend, and they wound up in dutch for kiddie porn? I think there's a parallel here.

The existing law had a bug.

[dpbsmith]

It all seems reasonable to me. The existing law had a bug. Nobody ever intended for upskirt pictures to be legal. The judge did the right thing: reported the bug. The developers of laws did the right thing: they fixed the bug. Now the legal situation is better than it was.

Re:The existing law had a bug.

[wvmarle]

Of course... but the problem is that they implemented the patch on their production servers (signing it into law), without going through the normal testing procedures (public hearing, discussion in the legislature). Actually they did it without any such test at all.

Now what could possibly go wrong?

and you wonder why women are driven away by nerd c

[Anonymous Coward]

Every commenter is talking about the theoretical abuse of power and "state tyranny" that this law could potentially bring. I think I saw one comment that lauded the lawmakers for pushing this law through.

There are laws on the books to protect women that do more harm than good ("anti trafficking" laws that give police carte blanche to violate the rights of sex workers and punish those around them), but forbidding the deliberate invasion of a woman's privacy for the purpose of carrying out a non-consensual sexual act in public is not one of them.

This is why feminists call it "rape culture". Everyone is so concerned with the potential violation of the legal rights of a man that does force a non-consensual sexual act on a woman and doesn't stop to think of the woman that has to endure it.

In Soviet USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Average person is breaking some law 9 times a day without knowing.
Soon all will be rotting in jail.
Welcome to new Soviet style USA

What's a skirt?

[ZecretZquirrel]

Can someone post up a picture?

Dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Interpretation of existing laws allows for broad and sweeping surveillance. Legislators discover this can be bad for them/their wives/their daughters, so penalize this one, very specific instance, rather than actually fixing the law.

How about down-blouse? Do we need a new law for that? Up-shorts? How about infrared? Yeah, let's just have three thousand laws that dance around the fact that the core concept of privacy is fucking broken and needs to be addressed.

5 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is taking upskirt picture really a crime worth a 5 years in prison?

Open for abuse

[Anonymous Coward]

The crime becomes a felony - punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine - if the accused secretly takes indecent photographs of anyone under the age of 18.

Like all knee-jerk government reactions this is open to law enforcement abuse. My parents have plenty of nude pictures of me in the bathtub when I was 1.

Close Call

[Baby Duck]

Whew! Live-viewing with a special analog, optical "periscope" is still permissible!

Re:and you wonder why women are driven away by ner

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we're talking about the very real surveillance state around which our current laws are written, which allowed for this indecency to happen, and which needs to be addressed, but was sidestepped by a knee-jerk legislature that was more interested in working the public opinion angle than actually doing its job. Of course, you knew that, which is why you had to strut out the strawman. Go back to your bridge, troll.

Didn't you get the memo

[dbIII]

People have been treating anyone that takes a camera to the beach as a felon for about a decade anyway.

Short Lived Law

[Anonymous Coward]

"The bill states that anyone who "photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils" a person's sexual or intimate parts without consent should face a misdemeanor charge."

I appreciate and get the intent of the law, but I suspect it was poorly written in haste and will get challenged before having it rewritten into something that works properly. So many questions. So if one took a photo of someone in a g-string bathing suite at the beach, is that different than hip huger granny underwear? Or is it illegal because they intended to be covered up in one situation and not another? A woman in in a wet t-shirt does it apply? Or does the law mean naked parts? It would seem a better standard would be if an average person has an expectation of privacy. Thats what you have when you wear a skirt or dress. You expect that your privates are private.

Re:Short Lived Law

[strstr]

Fuuck .. government doesn't have to regulate shit. Its practically harmless.

Intent

[TapeCutter]

Law doesn't say it has to be hidden or clandestine...the jury exists only to determine guilt based on the law.

Maybe you should read the actual law before pre-empting what the judge might say, it clearly includes the words "intent", "secrecy" and "privacy" in the following excerpt - "[Thou shall not photograph people's wobbly bits] with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, when the other person in such place and circumstance would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being so photographed".

So the prosecutor needs a bit more than just the video, he has to demonstrate the defendant intended to film the victim's "private parts", was attempting to conceal his true intent, and that the victim had an expectation of privacy. A naked toddler running around on a public beach clearly does not have an expectation of privacy and it would be very difficult to demonstrate secrecy and intent in such a scenario (assuming the defence lawyer is not in a coma). Why the chief prosecutor would bring such a case before the judge will also be questioned by any judge who (in your own words) is just interested in what "the law states". OTOH making upskirt videos of strangers with a hidden camera in your shoe is now clearly illegal.

As a non-American the jury nullification thing doesn't apply to me, nor do I have to suffer elected judges who don't have a clue what they are doing. However the concept of jury nullification is interesting, a majority vote by a jury that the law is unjust should at least delay a verdict until the legislators have publically reviewed both the case and the law. With such a system (US*) public prosecutors may become less keen to use bogus charges as bargaining chips to score a "confession" on a less "scary" charge.

* - Google "prison population by nation".

Seriously?

[Shakrai]

I have no idea to this day if Simpson did it or not

Umm, seriously?

Public surveillance cameras now illegal

[mysidia]

anyone who 'photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils' a person's sexual or intimate parts without consent should face a misdemeanor charge.

Anyone who videotapes, OR.... ?

Step 1. Run naked across the field of view of the camera "accidentally"
Step 2. See the camera, call the police
Step 3. Press charges against property owner for violation of upskirt law
Step 4. Profit

The crime becomes a felony - punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine - if the accused secretly takes indecent photographs of anyone under the age of 18."

Double-score if you're a 17-year-old obnoxious young lady; now the fixed camera operator will become a felon.

Re:Public surveillance cameras now illegal

[ruir]

How does that works out for security cameras at public pools?

Re:Public surveillance cameras now illegal

[david_thornley]

If you're running around naked in public, a reasonable person would conclude that your sexual parts are visible to the public; hence, the law doesn't apply. Why do so many people like making up hypothetical scenarios without reading the whole law?

Re:Public surveillance cameras now illegal

[dizdar]

It's not really secretly if the camera is in open view ... plus the part of the law which says "a reasonable person would believe that the person’s sexual or other intimate parts would not be visible to the public" doesn't really apply when you are running around naked.

Not only that ... but if you are running around naked in public then you can be charged with public indecency and charged as a sex offender. So your "profit" would go towards your own lawyer to get you off the sex offender's list.

Such haste frightens me

[Anonymous Coward]

Any law drafted, voted and passed so quickly couldn't possibly have had adequate debate and deliberation. Targeting creeps like this or not, the potential for unintended consequences is immense.

Isn't it funny

[TrollstonButterbeans]

... that in the USA, jury nullification is fringe religious organization.

Probably in cahoots with the ones that always like to point out that income taxes are unconstitutional or the ones that assert you don't even need to file a tax return.

A lot of good it did for Wesley Snipes ...

presumeable consent in public

[strstr]

Because they have no expectation of privacy in public, the law will be found unconstititional or unenforceable.

The thing is photography in public is already legal and they're trying to make it harder to do with this law. I don't know specifically what's going to happen, but by stepping out in public I think you're basically consenting to be photographed and there's not much less you should expect.

I also don't see the difference between a bikini and underwear, so what is the deal with this upskirt law? ..

never had jury duty?

[Anonymous Coward]

when in the course of doing jury duty were you advised to interpret the spirit of a law? At no point does a lawyer or other member of court recommend this. It routinely is omitted from the orientation and never suggested. Matter of fact, any allusion of the fact you should be doing this will get you kicked off a jury in most cases or corrupt a whole panel.

never are you advised to interpret laws or take their spirit into consideration. Only to say if they were guilty/not guilty by the letter of the law. Hence why tort law has become such a nuisance.

what about downskirt pictures?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, where women hide a camera in their hooha and surreptitiously record the pavement passing beneath their feet, so they can post it to the internet later for podoophiles?

another bad law caused by over reation

[Anonymous Coward]

I am still confused with the new law. Does photographs...of a persons sexual or intimate parts - include parts covered by underwear? by a bikini bathing suit? by yoga pants? I have seen plenty of women displaying intimate parts in public, (can you say camel toe) Now it is a crime to snap a photo of them? What about the Victoria Secrets models on a runway, would you have to get their consent to photograph them?

Or is it only illegal if they are not wearing panties??? Can someone clarify this mess. It is either bad reporting or a bad law that still needs clarification.

Should women be sited for indecent exposure if they flash while getting out of a cab or out of a chair? It may not be their intent to flash but they know it is likely to happen when wearing such short skirts. If it is illegal to look, then It should be illegal to flash. Throw Brittney Spears in jail, then register her as a sex offender, their are plenty of photos of her sexual or intimate parts out there showing she clearly was flashing, then of course throw all of the photographers in jail.

Re:If someone were to upskirt me

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because it sounds classier than hoepics, skanksnaps, findaferral. Even though its basicly the same thing.