WOTY -- "upskirting"

[Dan Goncharoff]

Have you read the law?

"(5) the term 'under circumstances in which that individual has a
reasonable expectation
of privacy' means--

 "(A) circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or
she could
disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of a private area
of the
individual was being captured; or

 "(B) circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a
private area of
the individual would not [**4000] be visible to the public, regardless of
whether that
person is in a public or private place.

(A) is clearly concerned with a peeping Tom acting in secret. If you want
to refuse to identify legislative intent, that is, I suppose, your right.

(B) is problematic -- can someone wearing a skirt believe that "a private
area" is never "visible to the public"? What if the skirt-wearer trips and
falls, for example?

DanG


On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Christopher Philippo <toff at mac.com> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Christopher Philippo <toff at MAC.COM>
> Subject:      Re: WOTY -- "upskirting"
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On Mar 6, 2014, at 2:24 PM, Dan Goncharoff <thegonch at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> > The VVPA was considered and found not to be applicable, because there =
> was
> > no "reasonable expectation of privacy" on public transportation. To =
> keep it
> > in context, the law was intended to prevent secret video in the home, =
> not
> > in public.
>
> The law itself gives no indication of that, so what documents establish =
> a legislative intent that it was only intended to prevent secret video =
> in the home?
>
> Supposedly it was =93designed to protect individuals from secret video =
> recording or capturing of =91improper=92 images not only in private but =
> also in public and semipublic settings where privacy is normally =
> expected and where consent is not given.=94 Encyclopedia of the Fourth =
> Amendment
> http://books.google.com/books?id=3DbukotIWwdwIC&pg=3DPA712&lpg=3DPA712
>
> If there can be a reasonable expectation of privacy in a gym changing =
> room when one is in undergarments or naked, then surely the expectation =
> of privacy that people refrain from taking photos of one=92s =
> undergarments on public transport while one is wearing clothes is even =
> more reasonable.  Aside from that, is underneath a skirt or up a skirt =
> really =93public=94?  I wouldn=92t have thought so.  A person can=92t =
> take a seat under someone=92s skirt.  Even taking the camera out of the =
> equation: if someone were intentionally holding their hand between =
> someone=92s legs without touching the person, would that not be some =
> form of harassment at least?  If the person were caught in the act, =
> could they continue to do so over the victim=92s objections?  If =
> upskirting is legal, then presumably people are also permitted to dangle =
> a small camera down the inside of someone=92s shirt to take a photo, or =
> up their shirtsleeve, or up the cuff of their pants, down their throat, =
> etc.?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org