[supercat]

I may despise the hidden cameras discussed here, but where does CONGRESS get jurisdiction to impose such prohibitions in cases where the recordings are not sent inter-state?

Obviously some states need to get on the ball, but that's not Congress' job.

[IronJack]

The American government does not own the Internet. Their attempts to regulate it are sheer hubris.

[umgud]

I would like to see porn related sites have their own domain area, but not by gov't fiat. As stated in the article, hate speech would also be relegated to the other domain with the porn sites. Who decides what is hate. I can assure you a Janet Reno justice dept would relegate FR to the trashcan if possible.

[southern rock]

This reminds me of that "lost episode" of Married with Children.

[Cold Heat]

We just put a fellow in prison for ten years in my little town for putting a camera in the tanning area of a apt. house. We just gave a pair of meth makers 52 years for getting caught with the stuff to do it. They never made a gram or got the chance to.

The point is that states do what they need to do. We don't need federal feel good crap.

[AdA$tra]

Does that apply to GOVERNMENT OWNED CAMERAS?

[ofMagog]

Apparently, the cameras I installed have to go.

[cricket]

"Wilson found she could not pursue criminal charges against the voyeur because secret video taping, unlike audio surveillance, is illegal in only a handful of states." Personally, find this incredible that it would even be considered 'legal'. . .is this not a form of theft? Could this not be considered a kind of 'terrorism'?

To place a camera in someone anothers domain, and literally steal their life and then pass it around - for profit yet - is the sleaziest, most disgusting venture that only someone lower than swampgrass could consider. . .

Do not know why this would be considered legal. . .it is as immoral as theft; and is more like the crime of rape. . .

[Registered]

One too many X-10 pop-up ads!

[Capitalist Eric]

Pics?

[Random Access]

I do not get C-SPAN, so a hidden cameras in a whore house is the only time I would get to see my congressman.

[garibaldi]

What part of the constitution covers this?

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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).