Posted on 12/09/2004 3:27:33 PM PST by SmithL
WASHINGTON -- Camera phones may make great Christmas gifts, but people better not use them for peeping-Tom photos on federal property.
In one of its last moves of the year, Congress passed a bill that would levy heavy fines and prison time for anyone who sneaks photos or videos of people in various stages of undress, a problem lawmakers and activists called the new frontier of stalking.
While camera phone voyeurism probably won't be high on the list of federal crimes the FBI and other federal agencies pursue, "at least in theory there is now federal protection available so people can't unknowingly have their private parts photographed, downloaded and transmitted around the world," said Hanan B. Kolko, a New York civil liberties lawyer.
The bill, which President Bush is expected to sign, would make it a crime to videotape or photograph the naked or underwear-covered private parts of a person without consent when the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Conviction could lead to a fine of not more than $100,000 or imprisonment for up to one year, or both.
The measure got voice vote approval in both chambers of Congress -- the House on Sept. 21 and the Senate on Tuesday.
The legislation would apply only in federal jurisdictions, such as federal buildings, national parks or military bases, but it carves out exceptions for law enforcement, intelligence and prison work.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
UH OH.
The bill should be entitled the -
"Sandy Burgler Bill!"
While I am against invading people's privacy, I don't see how anyone can expect any privacy if they're naked in public.
Then you shouldn't mind at all if a perp uses a camera phone to take pictures under your daughters dress while she is talking to one of her girlfriends. The camera phone is small, and fairly easily hidden. The problems aren't with photographing people who are naked in public; the problem is with people who lay the phone on the floor, under a woman wearing a dress; or taking a shot down the front of a dress.
I think the rule is "if it's in plain sight, it's not private." However, a LOT of these camera phones have taken pictures while under the table, or from a vantage point well below the expected limit. Shall we say that the view of a woman in a mini-skirt from a 5-6 foot tall man far different than the view of the same mini-skirt from a distance of 2 feet from the floor.
HUH?
That sure sounds like invading someone's privacy to me.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union....
...All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the ...
...The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises...
...No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Nope, don't see anything in the Constitution which would give Congress this power. Oh, well, back into the junk draw those old papers go.
And THAT is exactly what these phones have been used for. Hence, we now have a new felony (which I personally think is overkill) on the books.
I do feel sympathy for the victim, who has a picture taken either without their knowledge, or without their consent. However, a FELONY is a bit harsh for a rude/stupid action neither threatens life nor limb. Taking a picture of someone's boob now ranks up there with rape, arson, extortion, armed burglary, manslaughter, assault with intent to kill and a host of other heinous crimes. This is a bit of overkill.
If anyone wants to photograph my hairy a$$ what they wind up seeing should be punishment enough ;-)
Now there's a mental picture I wouldn't want to dwell on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.