Home

Technology & Voyeuristic Privacy Invasion

SEO Training.
Thread Title:
NZ aims to jail 'up skirt' snappers
Thread Url:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4076353.stm
Thread Description:
The BBC are reporting on the proposed outlawing of "upskirt pics" - It's quite amazing that this kind of invasion of privacy isn't covered already in some more general law but in NZ apparently the photos would have to be proven "objectionable" first...

Under the proposed measures, the making, publishing or distributing of voyeuristic material made without consent will carry a penalty of up to three years in prison.
Knowingly possessing such material without reasonable cause will become an offence carrying a penalty of up to one year in jail.

- Y! MyWeb

It's Crazy

It amazes me this stuff. It is not illegal to take them, something to do with selling them. I read that this type of stuff was one of the reasons why phones had to have the "click" noise. Same article refered to a statistic of 1/1000 womem in the UK have been caught on a hidden camera.

Now that's scary

By ukgimp at Dec 9 2004 - 11:09

Thats gonna hurt those tabloi

Thats gonna hurt those tabloids that specialise in shots of celebrities 'getting out of taxis' in a less than careful manner.

By 4Eyes at Dec 9 2004 - 11:09

Behave 4eyes! :)

Those types are staged, either that or the women are so thick not to realise that they have a short skirt on. Then they proceed to get out of a range rover with legs akimbo and a raft of photographers poised.

"i wonder whats going to happen here"

By ukgimp at Dec 9 2004 - 11:12

Celebrities

Arent people in the public eye considered fair game by most countries? I know that the english show "trigger happy tv" could show stunts they pulled on celebs without permission but had to get approval from ordinary members of the public...

By Nick W at Dec 9 2004 - 11:15

...either that or the

Quote:
...either that or the women are so thick

...hmmm - presumably you think people invite Posh Spice to a party for her witty conversation...

Probably as bit of both, I guess.

By 4Eyes at Dec 9 2004 - 11:54

>Posh Spice

Posh Spice

careful what you say about Victoria Beckham...wouldn't want NFFC to see you saying bad things about the second love of one of the best soccer players in the world.

By seobook at Dec 9 2004 - 12:09

Something extra

Just got this from Seobook.com:

US Passports get Chipped - Chips to be put in passports next year:

Quote:
The scenario, privacy advocates say, could be as simple as you standing in line with your passport as someone walks by innocuously carrying a briefcase. Inside that case, a microchip reader could be skimming data from your passport to be used for identity theft. Or maybe authorities or terrorists want to see who's gathered in a crowd and surreptitiously survey your ID and track you. Suddenly, "The Matrix" looks less futuristic.

Interesting eh?

By Nick W at Dec 9 2004 - 12:26

But not as fun nick :)

why did you have to make it all serious again. :)

By ukgimp at Dec 9 2004 - 13:10

Criteria

I wonder what criteria would be employed in order to decide a voyeuristic image from a non-voyeuristic (legal) one?
Hey! Does that include beaches in sunny parts of the world? :o(

By McFox at Dec 9 2004 - 17:45

Already illegal in UK

Some years ago I worked for London transport, and a guy was caught using a hidden video camera in a bag to get 'upskirt' videos of women using the escalators. He was arrested without a problem. This activity is already illegal, and the perpetrator is classed as a sex offender (I have a feeling the crime could be 'Carnal Knowledge' but could be mistaken).

By Black_Knight at Dec 9 2004 - 20:33