Comments on: unlawful photography

By: djuggler

djuggler — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 01:37:02 +0000

“first line of this story says we was using his concealed camera to â€œlook up the skirt and dresses of woman.â€ ”

Who reads the first line?

Well that was embarassing. The way their little skyscraper ad rendered the text I never read the first line. I started with “Police raided the apartment of Jesse…” That first line changes the context a bunch.

By: Latte Man

Latte Man — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 20:21:35 +0000

I disagree with the angle you are going with this. First, the law specifically states “in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy” A mall, a fair or any other public venue does not carry such “expectations” Also, this first line of this story says we was using his concealed camera to “look up the skirt and dresses of woman.” This is not somebody just “taking snapshots” at the mall, or even somebody using a “blind” to take “unassuming” photos at the mall. There are details missing here. Where was this binder placed (and how) to acquire such photos since it would require the “target” to stroll directly over it for it to work as stated. Again not enough information.

The law is meant to protect against things like “security cameras” being installed in dressing rooms, bathrooms, etc. Places where expectations of privacy are reasonable. So no you would not be able to grab a shot of Harold Ford Jr. stripped down to his skivvies in the Men’s Wearhouse while trying on a new suit, but certainly a photo of him at a “Playboy Party” or chatting with some girl urging him on (“Harold… Call Me”) then it is fair game.

By: djuggler

djuggler — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 18:04:39 +0000

Unless they are not giving all the information on the peeping tom, he wasn’t doing anything other than taking pictures of people in a public place. All he did was conceal his camera. Now, maybe he was doing something more that the article doesn’t convey such as trying to take pictures up skirts or something. Don’t take this comment to mean I am defending him. I am only nothing that the way the article is written, he wasn’t doing anything other than taking pictures in a public place.

Like Barry, I think people are beginning to confuse “private” with “rules of decency” and good judgment. It’s like when reports used to look the other way at the President’s indescretions (Kennedy) vs making them take presidence over more important national issues (Clinton). The press operated on different “rules of decency.”

By: Barry

Barry — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 15:55:41 +0000

That’s an interesting post, because I was thinking just along those same lines as I was posting my old World’s Fair pictures.

I wondered about all the people in the background of those photos, how I could obviously never hope to receive the slightest permission of any of them to post the pictures. Not only were they taken 25 years ago, they were all in a public place. But it still makes you wonder.

Interestingly, neither your examples of “back of the head” vs. “trunks off in the pool” pass the reasonable expectation of privacy rule unless the locations were within ones own house (or fenced yard). To me, once you step outside your front door and are visible from the street you are “in public” and should have no real expectation of privacy from being photographed – other than those rules applying to common politeness. It would be rude for a 15-yr-old kid to sit out on his front lawn and take pictures of his hot teenage neighbor girl whenever she walks out the door, but it shouldn’t be illegal. There are rules in society that should be understood as common courtesy but not necessarily legally protected. Because then you have to worry about proving extenuating circumstances in a court of law, etc. etc.

What a headache.