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

from the fixitfixitfixitfixitfixitfixitfixit! dept

Mon, Mar 10th 2014 8:14am — 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 you–Massachusetts 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 she’s 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 aren’t home and stomping your daisies? That’s 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 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 2½ 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 child’s clothing to view or attempt to view the child’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 shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2½ 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.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: massachusetts, michael robertson, photography, privacy

61 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 10 Mar 2014 @ 6:50am

The ability of politicians to turn everyday simple stuff into hideous crimes is unparalleled. Maybe another Amendment needs to be added to the Constitution:

"No law shall be enacted or valid if it goes against everyday actions that are socially accepted."

Or something. My English is not up to the challenge. In fact, I think my English is better than many lawmakers up there but really, this should be a concern.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Unidentifed Citizen, 10 Mar 2014 @ 10:16am
  
  Re:
  It's called jury nullification. Please look it up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rekrul, 10 Mar 2014 @ 10:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    Unfortunately, no jury is allowed to know of jury nullification. If a juror is suspected of having knowledge of JN, they will be replaced. If the jury is informed of JN by the defense, the judge will declare a mistrial. More than that, the judge will blatantly lie to the jury in his instructions and tell them that if the prosecution proves that the defendant did what they're accused of, they MUST find them guilty.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ben (profile), 10 Mar 2014 @ 10:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    It's called plea deal to avoid bankrupting oneself to defend against an inappropriate charge. Jury nullification only works if the case gets to a jury, and even then you are betting on having a jury that is smarter than the one which labeled a white guy who shot and killed an unarmed black youth as guilty of attempted murder.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2014 @ 3:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Poor Saint Trayvon! It's such a disgrace that anyone would believe that a black teen could have an attitude and would confront the "creepy ass cracker" who was following him. Don't they know that all black teens are genetically incapable of anything but gentleness and love? How could these people not see that Zimmerman obviously slammed his own head repeatedly into the pavement in order to cover up the fact that he was cruising around the neighborhood looking for someone black to kill? How could they be stupid enough to believe his story that he was tired of all the crime in his neighborhood and saw a black kid that he didn't recognize? Even the police can't be trusted to tell the truth! Can you believe that they actually had the nerve to say that the two burglars they caught a couple weeks before were black?!! Have you ever heard anything as ridiculous as a black criminal? Obviously they were as white as the driven snow and the police lied about it. Just like they lied about Zimmerman having previously reported seeing these same guys in the neighborhood acting suspicious.
      
      It's obvious to anyone with even half a brain that Zimmerman, despite having black members of his own family, was a psychotic racist who intentionally stalked and murdered sweet, innocent Trayvon as he cowered in fear and begged for his life, and then slammed his own head into the concrete, probably while laughing maniacally about how he was going to get away with murder.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 13 Mar 2014 @ 5:17pm
  
  Re:
  Wear a speedo if male or a bikini if female. Any camera footage of you is guaranteed to be suggestive.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
silverscarcat (profile), 10 Mar 2014 @ 7:25am

Sweet!
Time to go on a crime spree in Massachusetts now!

They can't use hidden cameras to photograph you, because it might break this law!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 10 Mar 2014 @ 9:42am
  
  Re: Sweet!
  If you spot a camera during commission of your crime be sure to give the camera a well framed crotch-shot...video evidence is now inadmissible in court!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 10:34am
    
    Re: Re: Sweet!
    No, video evidence IS admissible in court... with the victims you're robbing being the defendant and you being the victim testifying against them!
    
    Prosecutor: Now, explain what the sex obsessed Mrs. Smith did to you.
    
    Home Robber: Well, I had just broken into her house and grabbed $10,000 from her safe when I... I... saw her hidden camera blinking, aimed at my crotch!
    
    Mrs Smith: This is ridiculous! He just admitted he broke into my house and stole $10,000, he should be getting charged with a crime not me!
    
    Prosecutor: Shut up you mean sex obsessed old lady!
    
    Judge: I've heard enough. Mrs. Smith there's no crime more vile then a sexual pervert trying to secretly record inappropriate pictures of others just to get their sexual high! I sentence you to 30 years in jail, and you have to register as a sex offender for violating this poor innocent man's rights!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Mar 2014 @ 8:35am

Because knee-jerk reactions always lead to bad laws and we can't learn this lesson.
You'd think after the Patriot Act and recent disclosures we MIGHT have gotten the fscking memo by now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Alien Rebel (profile), 10 Mar 2014 @ 6:39pm
  
  Re:
  I dunno, our elected reps have frequently demonstrated they are also very capable of writing bad law after long and careful deliberation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 8:39am

Does this go for Keyhole-sattelite pics too? One more reason to due the national intelligence community...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 8:40am
  
  Re:
  "sue" that is...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 8:45am

So, does this mean we can't take pictures of police officers because they might not know we're taking pictures of them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 9:11am
  
  Re:
  No, it means we can't take pictures of anyone because they might not know we are taking pictures of them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AricTheRed (profile), 10 Mar 2014 @ 8:48am

The NSA is now complicit in willfully aiding and abetting the thousands of child pornographers now operating in CT
"...the misdemeanor becomes a felony if the captured images are "distributed"..."

It is my understanding that distributed means being in the custody of more than one "person" so when the NSA or GCHQ strip the images off your store security system network, while you are checking you live feed remotely, that you have now distributed the material. Double burn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 10 Mar 2014 @ 10:06am
  
  Re: The NSA is now complicit in willfully aiding and abetting the thousands of child pornographers now operating in CT
  Clearly, you have not been paying attention.
  
  According to the MPAA, distribution is simply 'making available' to someone else. The NSA does not need to pull the images, they just need to be able to.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - zip, 10 Mar 2014 @ 10:36am
    
    Re: Re: paying attention
    Not to nitpick, but was the RIAA (not MPAA) who came up with the "making available" doctrine, and got a judge to buy it, in Capitol Records v. Thomas.
    
    "The act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright owners, violates the copyright owners� exclusive right of distribution, regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown."
    
    - Judge Michael J. Davis
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joel, 10 Mar 2014 @ 8:57am

In regards to distribution in your examples... What about most modern security/survelliance systems that back up the video to a cloud server or let you remotely access it in real time?

Worst case scenario, but from a layman's view that sure looks like the charges would be piled on then...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Fenderson (profile), 10 Mar 2014 @ 9:03am

Not everythng needs a law
Not every rude, unpleasant, or even downright nasty act needs a law to prevent it. Especially when the law does more harm than the act it intends to prohibit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- scotts13 (profile), 10 Mar 2014 @ 9:14am
  
  Re: Not everythng needs a law
  Blasphemy! Every possible action must have the necessary written rules!
  
  I'm not quite a senior citizen, but I well remember when people had the amazing capacity to settle their own differences. A serious conflict between gentlemen could be "taken outside", and if a woman was offended by something you said or did, you'd be shunned, berated, or slapped as appropriate and everyone would move on with their lives.
  
  I used to think we'd become more civilized; but having every social interaction potentially monitored by law enforcement and the courts is not an improvement.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 10:16am
    
    Re: Re: Not everythng needs a law
    If the public had the same ability to monitor the law I think many of these problems would fix itself.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 1:20pm
    
    Re: Re: Not everythng needs a law
    A conflict between gentlemen devolving into 'Duking it out' only helps the man who happens to be physically stronger or more adept at fighting. Genuinely wronged, but incapable of physically defeating the other person? Trust the other person to not simply put a knife in your kidneys?
    
    Shame is also a horrible 'defense' tactic. Rapists are allowed to serve minimal sentences because people cared more for their futures than they did the woman they raped. Large parts of modern society still feel that the clothes you wear count as consent, that a woman who was raped should shut the hell up and burning her home down is due justice, that a young black man in a hoodie eating skittles is threatening enough to kill, that two people in love deserve to be brutally murdered and eternally tortured just because they're of the same sex.... And this is 2014. Unless you're part of the palpable privileged, chances are you're going to be on the wrong end of popular opinion.
    
    I could also go into the vast history of oppression and discrimination that thrived under a system where only the physically strong and genetically lucky folks called all the shots. Just because the system has worked in your favor doesn't mean it has for others, or even that it hasn't worked against them before.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 2:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Not everythng needs a law
      Fair enough. There needs to be balance though. I think a lot a people see the current system siding with minorities a bit too often (one-sided hate crime laws, affirmative action), so they lose respect for it and turn to street justice.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 10:14am
  
  Re: Not everythng needs a law
  This, as doing so is on the road to a religious theocracy, when any variation from law and custom is a sin. (PS politics is effectively a religion, as it is based on a belief system.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 12:30pm
  
  Re: Not everythng needs a law
  Not every rude, unpleasant, or even downright nasty act needs a law to prevent it.
  
  True, but I think THIS particular nasty act does.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 10 Mar 2014 @ 1:04pm
    
    Re: Re: Not everythng needs a law
    Why? I can think of two arguments why it should not: it's hard to see the substantive harm it does to the victims, and it's hard to come up with a way to make it illegal that doesn't have pretty huge downsides.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 1:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Not everythng needs a law
      I would say it harms the privacy of the victims, there's no legitimate reason for anyone to be taking pictures under people's skirts on the subway, and there's not much wrong with the current wording.
      
      Heck, even the court that overturned the conviction said that what happened SHOULD be illegal, even though it wasn't.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 1:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Not everythng needs a law
      "hard to see the substantive harm it does to the victims"
      
      This is just a really poor joke, right? It has to be. Being violated in public by a stranger is horrendously scarring! I'm going to work off the assumption that you are a guy, seeing as sexual harassment is less common (not nonexsistant) and not something you generally have to fear on a regular basis. How else can you possibly even begin to imagine that having someone shove a camera at your crotch is not traumatizing? You are essentially being disrobed in a public space by a total stranger who is helping himself to your vagina against your will. And anyone could do this to you. Anyone, anywhere, at any time, can just help themselves to photographing you in your underwear, and there is nothing you can do about it.
      
      Do you understand anything about rape culture? The idea that a woman has no agency over her body if a man decides he's fond of it. That a woman dressed in a certain way is "asking for it", and that culture as a whole polices women to be afraid and ashamed of their bodies while simultaneously handing themselves over to anyone nice enough to them. While they're simply told to not get raped, while men are never told to not rape. Do you understand how much fear is involved in traveling alone, or at night? When people actually think that violating her doesn't actually cause any /real/ harm.
      
      I am just completely baffled at someone not being able to understand the psychological consequences of being sexually violated. I don't face much if any general harassment on a daily basis, but it's not difficult for me to think for just a few minutes and understand the difficulties other people have to face.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 10 Mar 2014 @ 2:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Not everythng needs a law
        No, I'm not joking. Understand, I'm not saying that the behavior isn't abominable. I'm saying that I don't see how just taking upskirt shots causes so much harm that we need legislation about it. Embarrassment? Sure. Damage? Generally speaking, I don't see it. There would certainly be exceptions to that, but we already have methods of recourse for those people who really are harmed. We don't need a new law for that.
        
        "I'm going to work off the assumption that you are a guy, seeing as sexual harassment is less common (not nonexsistant) and not something you generally have to fear on a regular basis."
        
        I am a guy, yes, but the rest of your assumptions are wildly incorrect.
        
        "having someone shove a camera at your crotch is not traumatizing?"
        
        We aren't talking about people doing that -- there's already at least one law that covers that: assault, and maybe sexual assault. But taking a secret photo of underwear? That's a far cry from shoving a camera into anybody's crotch.
        
        "Anyone, anywhere, at any time, can just help themselves to photographing you in your underwear, and there is nothing you can do about it."
        
        The law doesn't change that fact.
        
        "Do you understand anything about rape culture?"
        
        Much better than you think I do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Pragmatic, 12 Mar 2014 @ 7:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not everythng needs a law
        @ John Fenderson, I'm sorry, but I've taken issue with both you and the AC @ 1:32pm. She's gone somewhat OTT about the actual harm of embarrassing photos - having someone take an inappropriate image of you would leave you feeling somewhat violated, but not necessarily shaking and crying in the shower.
        
        Basically, it's the intent that's the problem; some weirdo perving it up on pics of your privates (and possibly making them public). I think it would be better to frame it as a form of sexual harassment and take it from there rather than make a law prohibiting certain camera angles, that's just stupid. Besides, people tend to find ways around these things so I doubt it'd be effective.
        
        While the degree of how violated you feel will differ from act to act and in accordance with the personal history of the person on the receiving end, it's not fair to trivialize the act of sexual harassment by camera. It is, as the AC stated, an aspect of the rape culture and it is right and proper to push back against it.
        
        I believe in traditional family values, and by that I mean promoting respect for the person and the person's person. True freedom means not being afraid to go out in public wearing a skirt if you're a woman, not the "right" to do what the hell you like to a woman.
        
        I agree with you that it's not necessarily harmful to have an embarrassing picture taken but I don't think it's okay to do it, is what I'm saying.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2014 @ 2:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Not everythng needs a law
        You are essentially being disrobed in a public space by a total stranger who is helping himself to your vagina against your will.
        
        Bullshit. You're making a conscious choice to expose yourself in public. Nobody is touching you. You're seriously equating someone photographing in a public place with rape? Unfortunately such poor analogies and unfounded accusations are only going to hurt your cause.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2014 @ 10:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not everythng needs a law
        You're making a conscious choice to expose yourself in public.
        
        I think that goes a bit too far. This law only applies when someone intentionally photographs AROUND the clothing which would normally be concealing that area. If the person is intentionally exposing the area it does not apply. Yes, they could probably prevent it by wearing pants instead of a skirt, but wearing a skirt is a far cry from intentional exposure.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 2:31pm
    
    Re: Re: Not everythng needs a law
    Depends on how reasonable the expectation of privacy is. If a person only needs to bend over slightly to expose themselves, and a nearby person just happens to be filming at eye level - that's not reasonable. I realize that something different occurred here, just saying. I hope the current law will project photographers in cases where the expectation is unreasonable.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
zip, 10 Mar 2014 @ 9:18am

selective-prosecution fodder
Many laws are ridiculously broad: but that's the whole point. They were never meant to be applied to everyone -- only to people the authorities want to put away. It's through this process of selective prosecution that every one of us is guilty of something. It makes the job of prosecutors so much easier when they have a full toolbox of broad and vague laws that they can wield at will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 10:05am
  
  Re: selective-prosecution fodder
  Why don't they be done with it and just make "antisocial behavior" illegal and then use selective prosecution? One law to rule them all!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Oblate (profile), 10 Mar 2014 @ 10:32am
    
    Re: Re: selective-prosecution fodder
    | Why don't they be done with it and just make "antisocial behavior" illegal
    
    Because the next day every prosecutor would be behind bars.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 11:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re: selective-prosecution fodder
      "Because the next day every prosecutor would be behind bars."
      
      Nah, prosecutors rarely prosecute themselves.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone from Boston, 10 Mar 2014 @ 10:31am

"Under or around the person�s clothing"
Eh, I see a significant amount of difference between
"[..] fully clothed breasts, buttocks and genitals."
and
"[...] the sexual or other intimate parts of a person under or around the person�s clothing"

The law seems to be pretty specific about the attempt to circumvent clothing. Children running through your back yard to stomp your daisies? Unless you're putting your security cameras underground pointed straight up a skirt, you're not attempting to circumvent any clothing. As for the nanny example... unless they're intentionally 'accidentally' flashing every potentially-camera-hiding thing in your home, it's not going to happen. The wording seems to be pretty clear-cut on positioning the camera in a way that would reveal parts of someone's body that they have covered. It's not about secretly taking a photo of a person, but about secretly taking a photo of a person up their skirt/kilt, or down their shirt. "It is now unlawful to secretly record images of fully clothed breasts, buttocks and genitals. Full stop." is a blatant lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 11:24am
  
  Re:
  That's only the first half. There's an 'or' after that and then a second half that's entirely based on what a 'reasonable person' would believe. A reasonable person alone in your backyard would believe their "sexual or other intimate parts" "would not be visible to the public" and therefor taking a video of them would be a crime by this statue.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 11:37am
    
    Re: Re:
    "[...] 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"
    
    "attempt to view the person�s sexual or other intimate parts" The part that's hinging on a 'reasonable person' is for their expectation of privacy, not for what the person with the camera is attempting to do. Taking a personal surveillance video of your own home is not the same as attempting to view a person's intimate parts. Snapping a pic of a busy sidewalk also has nothing to do with attempting to photograph under or behind covered parts of a person. Unless there is some form of attempt to reveal the person, this law doesn't apply.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 2:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So the operative word is "attempting". We could have two nearly identical photos taken but one was deliberate while the other was coincidental. One a violation of the law and another not. Is that right?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2014 @ 10:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So the operative word is "attempting". We could have two nearly identical photos taken but one was deliberate while the other was coincidental. One a violation of the law and another not. Is that right?
        
        Yep. I realize that intent can be a tricky thing in law, but we use it all the time. I'm looking at the Wisconsin state laws and it's everywhere, from major crimes to minor ones.
        
        "...whoever causes the death of another human being with intent to kill that person or another..." "Whoever causes bodily harm to another by an act done with intent to cause bodily harm..." "...whoever by force or threat of imminent force seizes, confines or restrains a person without the person's consent and with the intent to use the person as a hostage..." "Any peace officer... who intentionally fails to render or make arrangements for any necessary first aid for any person in his or her actual custody..." "Whoever mutilates, disfigures or dismembers a corpse, with intent to conceal a crime..." "Whoever knowing the vicious propensities of any animal intentionally allows it to go at large..."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 11:41am
  
  Re:
  I don't know what law you're pretending to read, but the one under discussion doesn't say the cameras have to be "underground pointed straight up a skirt".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 11:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    No, it doesn't specifically say it has to be "Underground pointed up at a skirt", but it does specify trying to photograph around a person's clothing or attempting to reveal that person. That was an example of setting up a camera in a way that would be intentionally photographing around clothing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 12:13pm
  
  Re:
  I agree, and I further wonder how Tim THINKS this law should have been worded.
  
  The wording is identical to current laws except "another person who is nude or partially nude" was in the old law and this adds "the sexual or other intimate parts of a person under or around the person�s clothing".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not That Chris (profile), 10 Mar 2014 @ 12:26pm
  
  Re:
  I'm inclined to agree with this. The reaction seems a bit too much like "Oh lawdie lawd, every other law is overreaching, this one must be too!"
  
  It seems like the law is set up to specifically address trying to view naughty bits through or around clothing in secret. Standing in public with your phone out taking pictures isn't very secretive. The worst I can see where this might be misused would be the people who take the "hidden" video of girls wearing yoga pants and stuff like that. But even then, they're not trying to put their camera in some position to see around those yoga pants, they're just being oglers/perverts/[your label here].
  
  The nanny/babysitter example is also pretty bad. Unless your nanny cam is in the bathroom (which probably violates other existing laws), one doesn't usually anticipate a nanny/sitter getting fully or partially naked randomly in their house while they're out. I'd be more concerned about why this person was traipsing about my home in their birthday suit when they should be supervising my kids.
  
  Ultimately, even if the law is attempted to be used for unscrupulous suits, a judge and jury should have enough common sense (I know, these days it's so rare it's considered a super power) to realize what the intent of the law is and judge accordingly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 1:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Unless your nanny cam is in the bathroom (which probably violates other existing laws), one doesn't usually anticipate a nanny/sitter getting fully or partially naked randomly in their house while they're out. I'd be more concerned about why this person was traipsing about my home in their birthday suit when they should be supervising my kids.
    
    No, the old law already covered nudity. The only difference with the new law is that it covers non-nude yet around-clothes recordings. Really, the only new thing the new law would cover, as far as nanny cams go, would be ankle-level cameras.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 2:53pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I think the real question is how exactly does a camera record "around clothes"? If one were to argue this in court, one might say: if clothes aren't covering an intimate part of a person's body, that person is not by definition "fully-clothed" so the law wouldn't apply. The original story didn't even say a ankle-level camera, it said waist-level. *shakes head*
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Forest_GS, 10 Mar 2014 @ 1:01pm
  
  Re:
  You'd be surprised how far lawyers have twisted less confusing wording.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 10:39am

Not for nothing, but if you check out some of the other laws listed in that chapter of the state laws (Chapter 272: CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER) then this thing about photography doesn't seem too out of place.
For example:
Adultery (Sec. 14) Section 14. A married person who has sexual intercourse with a person not his spouse or an unmarried person who has sexual intercourse with a married person shall be guilty of adultery and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars.

Fornication (Sec 18) (What? Section 18. Whoever commits fornication shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three months or by a fine of not more than thirty dollars. )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 11:44am
  
  Re:
  "Fornication (Sec 18)"
  
  I wonder if that applies to lawmakers screwing the public.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alien Rebel (profile), 10 Mar 2014 @ 10:42am

If Only
Logic dictates that after cleavage shots are banned as well, cops will begin wearing miniskirts and halter tops to stop people from snapping pics of them in public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Machin Shin (profile), 10 Mar 2014 @ 10:53am

Secretly?
So what I get from reading this law is... If the creepy guy is kneeling down with his nice big SLR snapping away he is fine. After all, it is only those "secretly" doing it that get in trouble....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 11:00am

Can't we just charge him with public indecency or something? Why must we make new laws to get the guy if our old laws aren't enough?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
St. Pat, 10 Mar 2014 @ 11:18am

CFAA
>"The only hope is that, once time and distance take their toll, the law will be revisited and repaired."

Which will be never, if the CFAA is anything to go by.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 11:46am
  
  Re: CFAA
  Never fear, selective prosecution is here!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2014 @ 2:05pm

Yet another "never let a good crisis go to waste" moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John85851 (profile), 11 Mar 2014 @ 2:51pm

The bigger issue...
The bigger issue is how the legislature AND the governor can make and sign a bill into law so quickly. Is this the first bill that was passed with no debate? Why can't government work this quickly to pass laws about fixing streets and ending red light cameras? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gmo2ashes, 11 Mar 2014 @ 3:52pm

What about the TSA?
Would't this now make it illegal, in MA, for the TSA to continue their assault on American's right to privacy via "secret" photo/electronic methods the TSA use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wireless camera, 25 Feb 2015 @ 4:30am

Wireless cameras
IP CAMERA Plug & Play

Indoor and outdoor IP Camera controllable on your PC, tablet or smartphone

New IP camera ideal for both indoor and outdoor use. Reliable and easy to use, thanks to the “plug and play” function doesn't need of any configuration router/IP fixed/NAT /DDNS. Therefore, the installation is simple and quick: it's enough enter your login information shown on the sticker “UID” and “Password” (located under the camera) to start the video surveillance, wherever you are.

These technologically advanced cameras are connected to the LAN and to the internet via a router, and allow the vision and real-time control, either locally or remotely via PC, tablet or smartphone, using a special software (supplied).

The camera transmits video over an IP net providing high-quality images with resolution “720p HD” and can be transmitted with 30fps speed and resolution (1024x720) on the LAN/WAN by using H.264 hardware compression technology.

The IP camera is based on the standard TCP/P: there is an internal web server that supports Internet Explorer. Through the included CD of installation/configuration, you can be configure in a few seconds the camera simply by scanning the QR code with your smartphone.

http://www.endoacustica.com/wifi-ipcam-waterproof.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]