Smasharoo wrote:
I'm thinking that if they called the place up inside a skirt, or even down inside the pants, a private place, then a person could reasonably be expected not to be photographed there.
So, if you wear a bikini on the subway, it's fine to take a picture of that. If you wear a dress, now it's illegal. Sure, that sounds reasonable and easily enforceable. Already a crime to reach into someone's pants or skirt, and reasonable and easy to enforce. This wouldn't be. Is it a crime if a woman lifts her skirt up and laughs to her friends and a stranger takes a picture, or only if he has to expend thought or effort to take the picture. Shoecam illegal, but google glass record of what his eyes could see anyway legal?
It's a @#%^ing quagmire. "This makes me uncomfortable" shouldn't be the standard for criminalizing behaviour.
So, if you wear a bikini on the subway, it's fine to take a picture of that. If you wear a dress, now it's illegal. Sure, that sounds reasonable and easily enforceable. Already a crime to reach into someone's pants or skirt, and reasonable and easy to enforce. This wouldn't be. Is it a crime if a woman lifts her skirt up and laughs to her friends and a stranger takes a picture, or only if he has to expend thought or effort to take the picture. Shoecam illegal, but google glass record of what his eyes could see anyway legal?
It's a @#%^ing quagmire. "This makes me uncomfortable" shouldn't be the standard for criminalizing behaviour.
If I walk by my picture window naked and my neighbor snaps a picture was s/he a peeping tom?
By defining underclothes as being in private places on a person it's simply a way that the legal system could disallow these types of photos - cuz I think the public will demand some sort of protection from upskirting (I love the word...)