It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Massachusetts Supreme Court Rules it’s Legal to Record up Women’s Skirts in Public

page: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   

minusinfinity
Awesome! I'm moving to Boston and buying a new camera. lol.



(I'M JOKING!!!!! PLEASE DO NOT ATTACK! IT WAS A JOKE!)


Pick me up first. I'll pay for the gas to get there and half the rent.




posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by PaperMetel
 


What is up a woman's skirt is not part of the public eye, nor should it be. We have every right to expect privacy of what is underneath our clothing is we are indeed wearing clothing. To look up a woman's skirt requires a deliberate and pointed invasion of her privacy, since going about one's normal business, what lies under her skirt would be hidden.

These perverts who make these films do so more often than not discreetly, while the woman is shopping, standing in line at the bank, waiting for a bus, and the camera is often on the perv's shoe. The woman is completely unaware of anything amiss, the perv is secretly invading her space.

So no, it is a totally different ballgame from being filmed scratching your butt or adjusting your underwear in a store.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   
The article seems to hang up on the fully clothed vs. partially nude or fully nude definitions for picture taking.

Question?

Isn't the positioning of the camera for "upskirting" deliberately creating a condition of partial nudity from a fully clothed person without their consent? If they are without underwear, it would seem to be even clearer for falling under (no pun intended) their definitions of expectation of privacy in partial or fully nude states of dress?

I don't mean to get all picky on terms...but they seem to be in reading the law the other direction. How isn't it valid to read this way? Odd interpretation.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
reply to post by PaperMetel
 


what you don't understand is YOU HAVE NO PRIVACY OUTIDE YOUR HOUSE! and haven't for more then a few years..
not with as many cameras out in or above the world
you think airport security lookin at ya body outline is bad I wouldn't look up
(in ground cameras and the US government)

edit on 5-3-2014 by PaperMetel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   
here's one way to put a stop to the upskirters:

www.ksdk.com...


NYC has a problem with people taking pictures of kids (not their own) and those pics are, from time to time, used for seedy photoshop projects. Since I've learned about this, I keep a keen eye out for it when I'm with my kids in parks and other areas where it happens. When I see it, I stand between my kids and the photographer, blocking their shot, and I start snapping pictures of the photographer. They tend to run with impressive speed when you do this.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by schadenfreude
 


So just make sure you are wearing panties lol. I mean seriously, you go jungle you kinda want someone to see anyway right. That is like one of the many singers who got theirs photographed when they came out on stage without them. I mean really, everyone in the audience snapping pics, not their fault you forget you're drawers lol...

All the porn in the world available for free, who wants to run around taking pics up women dress for crying out loud.

You want to stop this and poporazi for that matter, start taking pictures of them and their families. It would stop real quick then lol.

The Bot



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   

rickymouse



A lack of morals in our society and legal system is what causes this to occur. Seems like the ones making the laws are a bunch of horney men there who feel that their kind have rights above those of most people


Now, now, now don't you go ramming your morals down someone else's throat ... or up their skirt as the case may be.

I knew there was a reason why I generally just don't wear skirts on general principle.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   

olaru12
Film up my ladys dress and expect to be singing soprano and totally unable to enjoy your movie.

Sometimes vigilante justice fills the bill.

Creeper/pervs will be dealt with accordingly....
edit on 5-3-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)


Right up until the creeper/perv sues you or charges you for assault for kneeing him in the groin.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by schadenfreude
 


I'm going to have to see some photos or I'm not believing it.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   

ketsuko

rickymouse



A lack of morals in our society and legal system is what causes this to occur. Seems like the ones making the laws are a bunch of horney men there who feel that their kind have rights above those of most people


Now, now, now don't you go ramming your morals down someone else's throat ... or up their skirt as the case may be.

I knew there was a reason why I generally just don't wear skirts on general principle.


I never wear a skirt anymore either. The only time I wore a skirt was when my sister and her friend talked me into wearing it and took a picture that never seems to get lost from our family photos. I learned about being immune to peer pressure when I was about four.
edit on 5-3-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   

fnpmitchreturns
reply to post by schadenfreude
 


Let's make a new movie .... Throw the perv under the train.......


It never ceases to amaze me how the moral authorities always chime in on the weird pseudo-sexual topics advocating assault and murder over petty nonsense, and acting as if they are the epitome of ethics while doing such.

Cause you know... looking up someones skirt is totally less appropriate than assault/murder.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   

ketsuko

olaru12
Film up my ladys dress and expect to be singing soprano and totally unable to enjoy your movie.

Sometimes vigilante justice fills the bill.

Creeper/pervs will be dealt with accordingly....
edit on 5-3-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)


Right up until the creeper/perv sues you or charges you for assault for kneeing him in the groin.


Oh, I wasn't talking about me doing violence on the perv. my lady is completely able to take care of herself. I even bought her a Glock 40 for her birthday. I'm just a hopeless romantic I guess.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Unbelievable.....I am hanging up my kilt for good!



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by schadenfreude
 


Um...

Ok. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but back aways in time, not too long ago that people under thirty do not recall it (I am twenty nine in a week or so, so I know whereof I speak), there was a time in which a woman wearing a skirt, had the precise same expectation of privacy while walking around on her daily business, as she did when in her own bath, behind closed doors. In fact, so did everyone else.

There was a time where people used to mind their own business, and expected others to mind theirs, and had every reason to expect that, because it is a matter of common decency, respect, and good manners not to go around videoing people without their permission. Are we really saying, in these modern times, that the deliberately invasive act, of placing a video camera in such a position as to create video of a ladies undergarments without their permission, is now ethically and legally unassailable?

When the hell did that happen? I consider it one of the foremost, the primary considerations of a man, to uphold the virtues, and whatever chastity may remain to members of the opposite sex, to protect them from danger, from assaults to their dignity and honour. Does the law now recognise the right of lecherous persons, to make videos of women without their permission, for the purpose of gratification of the videographer, or indeed their client (in the event of these videos being made to order, or as part of an internet business)?

There is a great deal wrong with Great Britain at the moment, but at least this sort of foolishness would simply not fly here. I would like to make clear, Massachusetts lawmen have simply got this wrong, and I hope to God they learn to get it right soon!



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 02:11 AM
link   

"According to the filings in Blake J Robbins v Lower Merion School District (PA) et al, the laptops issued to high-school students in the well-heeled Philly suburb have webcams that can be covertly activated by the schools' administrators, who have used this facility to spy on students and even their families. The issue came to light when the Robbins's child was disciplined for "improper behavior in his home" and the Vice Principal used a photo taken by the webcam as evidence. The suit is a class action, brought on behalf of all students issued with these machines. " - Boing Boing

www.youtube.com...

only the state is allowed to film you nekkid

not to be difficult TB but isn't Britain the king of state cameras filming everything?
none of those cameras are inapropriate?...no perves working the lenses?
edit on 6-3-2014 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


I am sure there are perverts working security cams. I remember when I went on work experience, I was asked to go and learn a little about store security. I did my work experience in a retail environment, at a sort of supermarket type of place. Heavy discounts on virtually everything.

Anyway, the security manager at the store was forever using the cams to closely observe the bosom of female shoppers, and employees of the store. I mentioned it in an off hand manner on my last day, to the general manager of the store, and I left to the sound of angry chaos!

The thing is Danbones, while we have a massive number of cameras, and while that is an invasion of the general privacy of all us Brits, and while that may stick in my craw like toffee mixed with glue, the fact is that none of the cameras which fall into that bracket, are positioned so as to give them the best possible view of some poor unsuspecting persons crotch. There is much to dislike about the CCTV culture we live in here, but some lech trying to score panty shots is still very much frowned upon.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Bisman
great. so they are planning to now legislate morality.


Not morality, privacy. How`d you feel if someone installed a live webcam in your toilet and had people paying to watch you.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Crakeur
NYC has a problem with people taking pictures of kids (not their own) and those pics are, from time to time, used for seedy photoshop projects. Since I've learned about this, I keep a keen eye out for it when I'm with my kids in parks and other areas where it happens. When I see it, I stand between my kids and the photographer, blocking their shot, and I start snapping pictures of the photographer. They tend to run with impressive speed when you do this.



Disgusting. Nice going taking pictures of them.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 02:40 AM
link   
again im not trying to be arguementative
i totally agree privacy is a very important part of freedom,
and to be fair the Russians put cameras in the bathrooms at Sochi I read.
I just feel that it it isn't the little perv thats the big fear...its the Damn State


Over 200 UK state schools have installed cameras in bathrooms and changing rooms to monitor students, a recent surveillance survey reported. British parents will likely be shocked by the study’s findings.

The survey is based on a freedom of information request conducted by Big Brother Watch, an anti-surveillance activist group. The group said they were shaken by the results, which was much higher and more extensive than expected.

The report "will come as a shock to many parents", Nick Pickles, Director of Big Brother Watch said. "Schools need to come clean about why they are using these cameras and what is happening to the footage”.

- 47,806 cameras used in 2,107 schools
- 207 schools have 825 cameras in changing rooms and bathrooms
- 90% of schools use CCTV cameras
- 54 UK schools have 1 camera or more per 15 pupils
- 106,710 CCTV cameras estimated in high schools and academies in England, Scotland and Wales

A total of 825 cameras were installed in the bathrooms and changing rooms of 207 different schools across England, Scotland and Wales, according to data provided by more than 2,000 schools.

rt.com...

This ranks right down there with watching children at home on their free laptops like they do a couple of states over in PA
edit on 6-3-2014 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


As I said, state sponsored violations of privacy are bad enough. But the idea that private citizens now have carte Blanche to effectively video the private bits of other private citizens without permission is something else entirely.




top topics



 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join