informationliberation
The news you're not supposed to know...




Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand the World
The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in EuropeThe New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century
(more)
Article posted Mar 11 2014, 4:11 AM Category: Big Brother/Orwellian Source: Techdirt Print

Legislators Rush To Patch Hole In 'Secret Photography' Law; 'Succeed' In Making It Make It Much, Much Worse

by Tim Cushing

The law is an ass. This has been true since well before Charles Dickens cranked out Oliver Twist in order to fulfill his four-book contract with Penguin Classics. We also hear quite frequently how the law's ass-ish gears (sorry, some metaphors are going be forcibly combined here) grind slowly, eventually birthing justice itself or, far more frequently, suffering a miscarriage.

Sometimes, however, the law is like an ass operating a second-rate rollercoaster for a third-rate traveling carnival in a fourth-rate town. It lurches forward and backward like a carny with a .28 BAC (also known as "cruising altitude"), with one hand lazily manipulating the rusty throttle/brake on this metaphorical coaster, giving every rider the opportunity to lose their lunches while simultaneously suffering whiplash.

Here's how everything went down.

On March 5th, the Massachusetts state supreme court found that "upskirt" photography was perfectly legal according to state law. The law, as (was) written, offered no protection for clothed individuals in public places. Dressing rooms, bathrooms, etc. were off-limits, clothed or not, but nothing in the law specifically protected the (clothed) public from people like Michael Robertson, who was caught by police holding his phone at waist-level to capture upskirt photos of fellow subway passengers.

Needless to say, outrage ensued. Instant outrage that ensnared several lawmakers, all of whom immediately rewrote the statute governing "secret photography" in order to prevent the state's pervert contingent from instantly turning every subway car into an (ultimately disappointing) sausage/camera fest.

When I say "immediately," I actually mean it. The rewrite was voted and passed March 6th and signed into law by the governor on the morning of March 7th. Within 48 hours, "upskirting" had gone from "presumably illegal" to "legal" to "very certainly illegal."

As is the case with any law based on instant reaction (you know, rather than a deliberative legislative process), it's problematic in its expansive terminology, as Jay Wolman of The Legal Satyricon points out.
Let me spell it out for youĖMassachusetts just made many previously lawful and proper hidden security cameras potentially unlawful.

According to the new law, it is now unlawful to secretly record images of fully clothed breasts, buttocks and genitals. Full stop. Your nanny thinks sheís alone, but you have a nanny-cam. Sorry, you probably just broke the law. You want to know which of the neighborhood kids have been going into your backyard when you arenít home and stomping your daisies? Thatís double the punishment.
Here's what's being inserted into the state's law governing "Photographing, videotaping or electronically surveilling partially nude or nude person(s):"
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 personís clothing to view or attempt to view the personís sexual or other intimate parts when a reasonable person would believe that the personís sexual or other intimate parts would not be visible to the public and without the personís knowledge and consent, shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2Ĺ years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.

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 child under the age of 18 under or around the childís clothing to view or attempt to view the childís sexual or other intimate parts when a reasonable person would believe that the personís sexual or other intimate parts would not be visible to the public shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2Ĺ years, by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 5 years, or by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
That's a lot of area being covered and none of it very specifically. It relies on a "reasonable person's" view of the intent of the photographer. When that "reasonable person" is a prosecutor, the obvious unintended collateral damage becomes apparent.

The law practically invites bystanders to point and scream like pod people whenever someone operates a cellphone or camera from lower than eye level. And while it attempts to address the previous law's shortcomings, it seems to leave decolletage enthusiasts free to do their thing (like shooting photos from above passersby, rather than under or around).

But it also turns anything merely questionable (photography-wise) into something potentially actionable. Any "secret" (read: "surveillance") photography could easily become an issue simply because the person being photographed is unaware of the camera's existence.

To expand on Wolman's example: you catch your nanny stealing using your home's camera system, but he or she spins it as "secret photography" and points out the frames that seem to catch him or her in positions that are "revealing." Good luck proving that you didn't set up the camera solely in hopes of catching a nude or nearly-nude nanny at some point in time. For that matter, good luck proving that the above wasn't merely one of the reasons you set up the camera.

And if your nanny is under the age of 18 (or substitute "babysitter" for "nanny"), you're in even more trouble. The prosecutor's not going to hit this law and stop. You'll also be looking at potential child pornography charges.

The state has to prove intent to make charges stick, but all that truly means is that it has to drop these accusations in front of a grand jury (the misdemeanor becomes a felony if the captured images are "distributed") and you're as good as convicted. An indictment looks a lot like a criminal sentence, especially if legislators are breathing (heavily) down prosecutors' necks, urging them to pursue maximum sentences and bail.

So, once again, we see legislative whiplash turning a questionable law into a terrible law. This isn't ever going to change. The only hope is that, once time and distance take their toll, the law will be revisited and repaired. In the meantime, citizens of Massachusetts will need to keep their cameras up high, completely visible and miles away from children, women in skirts, and anyone else whose clothing might reveal something if approached from lower/oblique angles.





Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- Florida Legislators Introduce Bill That Would Strip Certain Site Owners Of Their Anonymity
- 'Officer Awareness' Memo: Police Accountability Recording App Could Lead To Dangerous 'Flash Mobs'
- Are Your Devices Hardwired For Betrayal?
- US Court Rules That Kim Dotcom Is A 'Fugitive' And Thus DOJ Can Take His Money
- GCHQ and NSA Collaborate to Steal the Keys to Your Cellphone
- Innocent College Student Subject to Restraining Order for Resembling Alleged Rapist
- Google Joins Civil Liberties Groups To Oppose Expansion of FBI Spy Powers
- State License Plate Reader Bans Pick Up Steam









Comments Add Comment Page 1 of 1
Americanegro

Posted: Apr 06 2014, 1:30 PM

Link
69140 I NEED TO SEE THAT PUSSY!

I NEED TO SEE THAT TITTIES!


Add Comment
Name
Comment

* No HTML


Verification *
Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below
 


PLEASE NOTE
Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.


FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



Advanced Search
Username:

Password:

Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Register

Peaceful Man Shot In The Face During Botched Drug Raid, No Drugs or Guns Found - 03/05Cop Executes Perfectly Healthy Pony, Tells Family Animal Was 'Hit By Car' - 03/05Texas Cops Arrest Man for Video Recording, Claiming They Needed Phone as "Evidence" - 03/05Watch this Police Officer Get Owned After He Pulls Over a Former Cop for Honking at Him - 03/04Vet Facing Life Sentence Found Not Guilty for Aiming Pistol at Cops Who Failed to Identify as Cops - 03/05Whittier Police Officers Sue, Say They Were Forced To Meet Quotas, Faced Retaliation - 03/05DOJ Invites The ATF To The War On Drugs, Grants It Power To Process Its Own 'Drug-Related' Forfeitures - 03/05Video Exposes Lying Cops After they Break Handcuffed Man's Skull Open & Claim he Did it to Himself - 03/04

Man Follows Speeding Cop, Finds Out He Was Speeding To Buy PeanutsMission Creeps: Homeland Security Agents Confiscate Women's Panties For 'Copyright Infringement'Cop Shoots Couple's Dog, Threatens Jail For Trying To Save Dog's LifeSWAT Team Shoots Teen Girl & Her Dog During Pot Raid On Wrong HomeDurham, NC Cop Testifies Faking 911 Calls To Enter Homes Is "Official Policy"Indiana Sheriff Says US A "War Zone" To Justify New MRAP Military VehicleTampa Cops Surveil Pot Dealer, Catch Him Selling Pot, Raid His Home & Kill Him"You Just Shot An Unarmed Man!": Witness Says Police Shot His Friend With His Hands Up
(more)

 
Top