Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004

WarEaglemtn · Sep 4, 2004

This latest stupidy, coupled with the Homeland Stupidity Act put all of us in the USA in danger. Tourists, street photographers, LF architectural/scenic shooters & anyone with a camera. All are at the mercy of the paranoid idiots with badges. No pretext is too small for them to stop & harass you. Photograph the subway, power lines or a normal street scene & you might find yourself subject to arrest. All it takes on one bad cop... and there are a hell of a lot more than one of them out there. Welcome to the USASSR

WarEaglemtn · Sep 4, 2004

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.+1301:

The above should get you to the copy of this US act.
Note the language... you can even get in trouble for drawing the wrong thing in public.

Jorge · Sep 4, 2004

LOL....why are you so upset? These are your representatives in congress at work....This is certainly far more important than providing medical care for indigent children, making sure social security does not go bankrupt (which btw I imagine they are going to borrow from the SS fund to enforce this law). So really, this is truly a threat to the US. Now, if you take pictures of your children in the bath tub, you are a child pornographer in violation of the video voyeurism law.....lol....this amuses me to no end.....

Aggie · Sep 4, 2004

Did you take the time to read said bill? I personally think it is about time something like this is stated. What in essence it says is that no can take a picture image, video or any sort of image capture of private parts of an individual without their knowledge. It goes further to also state that transmission of said image capture of any sort is not going to be allowed.

Short version, if you take a picture of someone with their private parts hanging out, you had better have their written conscent. To take it without their permission, is illegal. To put it on any sort of medium that transmits it for others to see, is illegal.

I do not see a darn thing wrong with getting permission. Do you want someone to take a picture you you naked and post it? All without your conscent or knowledge?

Magic Rat · Sep 4, 2004

This is nothing more than what has been needed. A law to prosecute doosh bags who walk around the mall with a video camera on the end of a cane or their shoe. Up until recently the law was on their side because there is no "assumption of privacy" in public areas. This is intended to keep my private parts, well, private. As the father of a little girl I welcome it. The defenitions are pretty clear.They will work in the best interest of the general public.
The Rat

Ed Sukach · Sep 4, 2004

Interesting law.

Chapter 88 - Video Voyeurism
1801, Section (c) -

- This section shall not apply to any person engaged in lawful law enforcement (? does this sound redundant? - ES) or intelligence activities.

- So if you are an Intelligence Operative, it is perfectly OK to place a video camera in the Ladies rest facilities ... "gathering intelligence."???
Does this sound like "licensed perversion -- "Licensed licentiousness" -- to anyone else? What possible intelligence value could there be in ladies "undergarments"? Or the size of ... no... I won't go there ..

One change in my Modus Operandi ... and I'll suggest the same to others that do figure studies ... Get the Model Release signed before the session, or introduce some other sort of "Consent Form".

juan · Sep 4, 2004

As I understand it, the cell-phone digital camera idiots prompted this law. They were taking photos of women in gyms and other such places and then emailing them or uploading them. I think, rather than the Video Voyerism law, we need one simply authorizing us to shoot people doing such stuff, and also shoot people who are talking on a cell phone while driving.
juan

Magic Rat · Sep 4, 2004

In order to test the possibility of abuse in any law we have to imagine the most extreme scenario. Doubtful that any arbitrary photography of me in a restroom, where I have an assumtion of privacy, would stand up in court if not tied to a legitimate investigation of ME. If, for instance, a woman was smuggling heroin to her boyfriend in prison, or somone was hiding evidence in their pants, I can see where this type of photography would be a necessary evidence gathering tool. Once again, this law is meant for the losers we must coexist with in society. Embrace your freedom and go photograph telephone poles or people in the street. Just keep your phone in it's holster in the locker room.
The Rat

Andy K · Sep 4, 2004

Aggie said:
Short version, if you take a picture of someone with their private parts hanging out, you had better have their written conscent. To take it without their permission, is illegal. To put it on any sort of medium that transmits it for others to see, is illegal.

I do not see a darn thing wrong with getting permission. Do you want someone to take a picture you you naked and post it? All without your conscent or knowledge?

So how do proud parents get permission from their newborn babe to get a shot of him/her in the tub? It effectively outlaws ALL beach/holiday photography because there might be someone in the background with 'private parts' on show, it outlaws photographing your own kids while playing in a pool or with the hose in the garden... I have absolutely no wish to photograph anyone's 'private parts', but I do wish to be able to photograph without some slackjaw pointing an accusatory finger at me as a possible pervert.

This act is politically correct madness with serious repercussions for all US photographers. Even totalitarian Russia had no law like this.

And before you say it is no concern of mine, as a UK citizen what happens in the US usually happens here within a short time.

anyte · Sep 4, 2004

How do you photograph your kids in the tub? You point the camera and take the photo. If your kids later sue you for damages then you must have done something wrong somewhere, something that had nothing to do with taking pictures of their naked behind in the tub.

At the beach or in a pool? Swimsuits are not considered undergarments.

The law is very specific in what is being targeted.

Andy K · Sep 4, 2004

...and if there happens to be a topless woman in the background on the beach? As for your child in the tub, we have already had cases in Britain of parents confronted by Police Vice Squad officers knocking on their doors because some politically correct arsehole at the lab objected to junior's winkie appearing in a photo.

This law is a gift to interfering busybodies.

bmac · Sep 4, 2004

Andy K said:
...and if there happens to be a topless woman in the background on the beach? As for your child in the tub, we have already had cases in Britain of parents confronted by Police Vice Squad officers knocking on their doors because some politically correct arsehole at the lab objected to junior's winkie appearing in a photo.

This law is a gift to interfering busybodies.

Thank god for digital No lab arseholes here...

Aggie · Sep 4, 2004

Andy K said:
So how do proud parents get permission from their newborn babe to get a shot of him/her in the tub? It effectively outlaws ALL beach/holiday photography because there might be someone in the background with 'private parts' on show, it outlaws photographing your own kids while playing in a pool or with the hose in the garden... I have absolutely no wish to photograph anyone's 'private parts', but I do wish to be able to photograph without some slackjaw pointing an accusatory finger at me as a possible pervert.

This act is politically correct madness with serious repercussions for all US photographers. Even totalitarian Russia had no law like this.

And before you say it is no concern of mine, as a UK citizen what happens in the US usually happens here within a short time.

Read the bill very carefully. Read where it says. "REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY." A beach as far as I know it is a public place. If a person is in a public place and it is legal for them to be topless, does it not follow that they are just as likely to be photographed like any person on the streets may? This bill is more about people taking unauthorized pictures of people in various unclothed states. Those states being in a private place, IE bathrooms, home, fenced backyard. How many papparazzi hang out in trees to try and get photos of celebrities in just such non attire?

As for the kids in the bathtub one, are you taking pictures of their private parts? I took pictures of my kids undressed, but private parts hidden from view. I also at the time was their legal guardian able to give said conscent of that photo being taken.

As for Russia, they had much stricter laws. I can give you the email address of my sister in law who along with her parents escaped from the old Soviet Union back in the early 70's. Ask her what freedoms her family was allowed.

Magic Rat · Sep 4, 2004

anyte said:
Swimsuits are not considered undergarments.

True, but if your children are at a water park and someone is surreptitiously making closeup video of their groins you have a reasonable expectation that these images would not be made. I have seen this specific incident in the news here in SoCal and should expect that persons involved with this type of behavior be prosecuted. Which is what I understand the following to state.

`(3) the term `under circumstances violating the privacy of that individual' means under circumstances in which the individual exhibits an expectation that the improper image would not be made, in a situation in which a reasonable person would be justified in that expectation.'.

This could however have far reaching implications in the tabloid industry. Which I'm sure most celebrities would welcome.

anyte · Sep 4, 2004

Magic Rat said:
True, but if your children are at a water park and someone is surreptitiously making closeup video of their groins you have a reasonable expectation that these images would not be made. I have seen this specific incident in the news here in SoCal and should expect that persons involved with this type of behavior be prosecuted. Which is what I understand the following to state.

`(3) the term `under circumstances violating the privacy of that individual' means under circumstances in which the individual exhibits an expectation that the improper image would not be made, in a situation in which a reasonable person would be justified in that expectation.'.

This could however have far reaching implications in the tabloid industry. Which I'm sure most celebrities would welcome.

Well I should hope no one here is upset by the bill because it would put a damper on them shooting the groin area of strange children at the beach or water parks.

Andy K · Sep 4, 2004

Aggie said:
As for the kids in the bathtub one, are you taking pictures of their private parts? I took pictures of my kids undressed, but private parts hidden from view. I also at the time was their legal guardian able to give said conscent of that photo being taken.

No I am not. But it is EXACTLY that kind of sly insinuation that this law will encourage. My parents have photographs of me aged two weeks being bathed, genitalia on view. Are you saying my parents, and millions like them were and are deviants Aggie?

Keep your puritanical laws. What's next? Modesty blinkers for men in case they perchance to glance upon an undraped female ankle? Well remove my eyes with a fork! :rolleyes:

juan · Sep 4, 2004

It would appear from the link that the bill has not yet passed. It appears to be still in the House. If you're worried about it, write your Congressman. Raise hell somewhere it will do some good.
juan

Magic Rat · Sep 4, 2004

juan said:
If you're worried about it, write your Congressman. Raise hell somewhere it will do some good.
juan

Solid advice.

blansky · Sep 4, 2004

Personally I think this is an infringement on "body function" artists, those people who express their art by taking pictures of people using their bodies in the ways they were intended.

I welcome their "art" on the internet the same way I welcome the art of so many other cutting edge artists.

Aggie if you don't want people seeing you in the bathroom and bedroom then you should shut down your porn site and refund people's money. I paid good money to see Aggie website with her strutting naked throughout the house doing her daily activities and I for one would hate to see her close it down.

But hey that's just me

Michael McBlane

Aggie · Sep 4, 2004

Andy K said:
No I am not. But it is EXACTLY that kind of sly insinuation that this law will encourage. My parents have photographs of me aged two weeks being bathed, genitalia on view. Are you saying my parents, and millions like them were and are deviants Aggie?

Keep your puritanical laws. What's next? Modesty blinkers for men in case they perchance to glance upon an undraped female ankle? Well remove my eyes with a fork! :rolleyes:

It is just this kind of jumping to conclusions that gets people upset. I did not call you a deviant. As for your parents, I did not say a word about them. It was a rhetorical question which could also be said to say you are not one of them. Seems I was the one who posted a nude shot of a cowboy out in a pear orchard back a year ago. I also said that parents are the GUARDIANS and as such are the ones giving permission. The hospital where both my kids were born would be at fault according to your theory. Both of them had their pcitures taken fully exposed. They were also each less than 24 hours old. As for police storming homes to take pictures that parents have taken of their children, there will always be some officious person no matter what law is on the books that will over step common sense. Example was the woman in Texas almost 2 years ago that we discussed here on apug who was jailed and her children taken away for having pictures of her breast feeding and also of them in the bathtub. That was sans said bill.

What would be better served would be rallying against the stupidity of officials going beyond normal in their execution of their jobs. The bill in question is good. It far out weighs the few probable times some one might take it too far. There are far more instances of pediphiles, papparazi, and the like that this is aimed at, praying on children and even adults. Those are the ones I care about.

LOL, puritanical? Well maybe I should refund Blansky's money.

Andy K · Sep 5, 2004

Aggie said:
.
What would be better served would be rallying against the stupidity of officials going beyond normal in their execution of their jobs. The bill in question is good. It far out weighs the few probable times some one might take it too far. There are far more instances of pediphiles, papparazi, and the like that this is aimed at, praying on children and even adults. Those are the ones I care about.

Those 'few probable times' will become a landslide of false accusation with the backing of this Bill. As for paedophiles, yes I agree they have to be caught and punished severely. But surely current law can already do this? It would be astonishing if it cannot.
And paparazzi? When is a paparazzi a paparazzi and when are they an investigative journalist? You can bet your bottom dollar those in power will abuse that description as much as they possibly can. If this law was in place during Watergate, do you think the Nixon establishment would have made a distinction between 'paparazzi' and 'investigative journalist' or would they have used this Act for their own good?

Already new laws are being abused. Read this...

http://69.93.170.43/index.php#

You are losing your freedom Aggie. Bin Laden has won.

Aggie · Sep 5, 2004

I haven't lost my freedom. They sky is not falling down either.

What does the story of the guy who was arab looking taking pictures of a bridge have to with someone taking pictures of naked people in private settings without their permission or knowledge? Is this going to turn into another bash Bush, hate the USA, all religions are evil, and ultimately anyone who does not agree with you are ( fill in the blank)? I leave the political trolling to you.

Andy K · Sep 5, 2004

Aggie said:
I haven't lost my freedom. They sky is not falling down either.

What does the story of the guy who was arab looking taking pictures of a bridge have to with someone taking pictures of naked people in private settings without their permission or knowledge? Is this going to turn into another bash Bush, hate the USA, all religions are evil, and ultimately anyone who does not agree with you are ( fill in the blank)? I leave the political trolling to you.

So it's ok to persecute people on the basis of skin colour too is it Aggie?

You cannot have a discussion about Law without also discussing the politics behind that law. The two are directly related.
If my opinion is different to yours that makes it no less relevant. If you don't want people to discuss politics in a manner you do not like then I suggest you don't join threads about political law, become a communist and move to North Korea. You won't find any opposing points of view there.

juan · Sep 5, 2004

The trouble with this law, in my view, is that it is federal. This country for most of its history went with almost no federal criminal law. There were laws against counterfeiting, laws requiring the payment of taxes, etc. but even in 1963 President Kennedy's assassination was not a violation of any federal law. Criminal laws were the province of the states.

So, the answer is that yes, in most places the behavior this law seems intended to prohibit either is, or could be, punished by state law. It can also be prevented privately. Gyms here in Florida are not allowing people to bring in cell phones because of the cameras built into so many.

People are no longer taught basic civics or basic government in this country and have little or no concept of federalism any more. Some politicians have learned to play on this ignorance and try to buy votes by proposing legislation that violates the principles of federalism.

Then there's the issue of the federal Constitution. The very issues of uncertainty raised here could well mean this bill, if it becomes law, will be found unconstitutional because of vagueness. Most of the Internet porno laws have been found unconstitutional for this reason.

Stop making me think about this stuff.
juan

doughowk · Sep 5, 2004

Goldwater was wrong - just because a bad law is only at the State level doesn't make it any better. Most laws that attempt to regulate moral behavior (beyond the obvious, eg murder, assault) never work totally & therefore justify even more repressive laws. If the majority of Americans want to continue down that slippery slope of moral regulations, I need to find a country that still believes in a Jeffersonian political system. Canada?

Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency