Hidden sex cameras may soon be banned

CNN.com ^ | April 17, 2002 Posted: 11:36 AM EDT (1536 GMT) | Reuters

[DCPatriot]

"This would also make illegal a husband leaving a video camera running in the bedroom to see what the wifey is up to while he's at work"

So what? As long as *you* get the proof, you can plan your exit and the rest of your life.

Sue for divorce and have the tape ready to roll on some website. It's a lot easier to say I'm sorry than ask permission.

[joathome]

Yeah, and wifey can still hire that private investigator to follow hubby to that hotel room.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

Thank God! I'm tired of all those ladies trying to film up my pant leg when I'm at work arranging produce.

[Action-America]

Great idea, except for one very major caveat.

The only cameras that the federal government has the Constitutional mandate to regulate are cameras owned by the federal government.

Now if they want to make it illegal for the federal government to video or film people without their explicit consent or a court order, I would heartily applaud that initiative.

 

[billybudd]

As usual, the Communist News Network utterly fails to describe what the story is actually about. The headline says that "hidden sex cameras may soon be banned", but then only says that surveillance would be illegal "without that person's consent." So which is it?
I can't see the need for a new law. Trespassing and private property laws already prevent you from just going into someone's house and putting a camera there without their permission. The only unique thing about this law (I'm only assuming, because CNN doesn't say) is that you would be banned from putting cameras inside your own house and flashing in front of it. This is all bull, of course. The government has no right to tell you what to do with your property. And the idea about segregating "inappropriate" content into different domains (according to the bureaucrats' opinion, of course) is one small step towards government controlling what may or may not be posted on the internet. Any friends of liberty should be deeply concerned about this bill.

[DennisR]

Don't you just hate that?

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

"Adults-only Internet domain The bill would also require Web sites containing pornography, hate speech or other material deemed harmful to minors to give up their ".com" Web addresses and register under an adults-only Internet domain such as ".prn."

Let me guess, we'll all be redirected to www.freerepublic.prn...

[PistolPaknMama]

So YOU'RE the one that did that?

hehehe

[Ben Bolt]

It is my understanding that in public there is not the reasonable expectation of privacy . I know some folks taking there cameras to NYC this week to film the left's protest .

[SkyPilot]

The one on the right is Angie Harmon, I think............

[SkyPilot]

Angie Harmon, star of Lifetime - Television for Women and Law and Order.

[supercat]

The only cameras that the federal government has the Constitutional mandate to regulate are cameras owned by the federal government.

Now if they want to make it illegal for the federal government to video or film people without their explicit consent or a court order, I would heartily applaud that initiative.

They might also be able to restrict interstate transmission of material produced by such cameras without the subjects' consent.

[Godel]

So the government gets to decide what speech is "hate speech" then relegate it to the back corners of the internet.

No way in the world that's constitutional (as if it matters anymore).

[Action-America]

"They might also be able to restrict interstate transmission of material produced by such cameras without the subjects' consent."

Staying strictly within the limits of the Constitution, that would not be possible without severely impacting legitimate camera transmissions (i.e. some security cameras are monitored in another state at a central location).  To limit only the transmission of signals from certain cameras would demonstrate effective control over specific devices that are within the purview of the states.  Such limits would infringe upon the state's right to control those cameras.  Only if the feds limited all interstate video transmissions without explicit consent of the subject, would such a law pass strict Constitutional muster.

But then, when was the last time that Congress or the Whitehouse paid any attention to the Constitution?

It's still a matter for the states and most states that do not have such laws in place are in the process of enacting them.  The only reason that Congress is involved in this at all, is that they see it as another way that they can seize more power from the states without massive public uproar.  After all, who would complain about such a noble law - except of course, for a few radicals who believe that the Constitution means exactly what it says and is definitely NOT a living document.  They see it as a safe power grab.

 

[weegee]

Right. I saw an article in print on this and it made it clear that this is Federal legislation which I do not support.

The article I read also did not specify the distinction of public vs. private property. Both articles seem to play up the sex angle.

If they want to expand "bugging" laws to include video as well as audio recording then that is one thing, but the language I saw said it would make it a federal crime to videotape anyone unclothed or involved in certain sexual situations "for a lewd or lascivious purpose without that person's consent." They may be hesitant to outright prohibit video bugging (sans audio) because it could limit some undercover investigations (requiring them to seek permission from a judge).

This is bad law and should be rejected. Also note that things like wire-tapping vary from state to state (in Texas, one party of a phone call can tape the call without disclosing this to the other party).

[weegee]

The bill would also require Web sites containing pornography, hate speech or other material deemed harmful to minors to give up their ".com" Web addresses and register under an adults-only Internet domain such as ".prn."

This is also a scary part of this same piece of legislation. By "who's" call? "Hate speech" == "porn" now does it? And just what is "other material"? Scenes from 9/11, the Holocaust, African massacres? Drug content? Curse words?

[weegee]

The easy answer is "nope". The article I saw cited a requirement for purient interest in videotaping and described the content of nudity or "certain" sexual situations.

Big brother is asexual, don't you know? No conflict with this legislation.

Be seeing you.

[weegee]

Passing around a hidden video "for profit" would be a commercial venture. Without a release, the peeped person could sue.

If a camera were hidden in your house by someone outside of your house, would you not be able to prosecute for illegal entry?

[weegee]

This would also make illegal a husband leaving a video camera running in the bedroom to see what the wifey is up to while he's at work.

Yes it would if it caught her having sex.