Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004

[Ed Sukach]

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.

There is nothing quite like "picking up" on a minor inflection and pumping it up beyond all proportion; and then: "If you don't like my idea (no matter how noble it may be) then off with you to a place where there are NO opinions allowed.

What I am trying to say, is "Chill Out". Even the most whacko among us should be listened to. We are all intelligent enough here (after all, we eschew "digital" - that has to be irrefutable proof of our intelligence) to separate the wheat from the chaff for ourselves.

 

[removed account4]

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

http://69.93.170.43/index.php#

so what does a suspicious-person photographing a bridge have to do with someone sticking a surveilance camera in the in a woman's gym for broadcast on the internet?

 

[Andy K]

The 'suspicious person' was not the only person taking photos of the bridge, there were many others there doing the same, and although everyone involved was american, the others were white and were left unmolested by 'the authorities'. That was a blatant abuse of law. This new legislation is also wide open to abuse. It is far, far too vague.

How long will it be before neighbour is having neighbour arrested because of a dubiously sited security camera? How long before innocent people have police knocking on the door because their holiday snaps contained some nudity in the background which some lab monkey took objection to? Or because their proud photos of baby offended some perverse minded politically correct idiot? How would you feel if the police knocked on your door checking you out as a possible paedophile because of a photo of your baby in the nude? Somehow I don't believe you'd be very happy about it. I know I wouldn't.

The 'thought police' are coming.

 

[127]

The point is that while it's easy to see how laws will help prosecute the bad guys you also need to consider how they can be applied to prosecute YOU. Obviously we want to stop the bad guys, and obviously you know you're basically a decent guy, and won't get harrassed, but it only takes someone to get a bit carried away, and your life could be destroyed.

It's easy to frame a law which gets the bad guy, eg patriot - "we can arrest who ever we like, without giving a reason" - that pretty much solves all law enforcement problems, so why do they need more laws? It sounds great that the government have lots of powers to deal with terrorists, paedophiles, pornographers, and photographers but unless there are checks and balances where does that leave us?

Suppose you take a snapshot of some friends down the beach. In the background someone is getting changed, and lets the towel slip. Currently it's a bit of a giggle and you forget about it. In the future, the lab guy might report it (and in the future may be compelled to report it). The next day you get a visit (just a precaution of course!). They find thousands of negatives, which of course they're unable to sort through in a reasonable time, so they seize them (just a precaution). While they're at it they'll need to take all of your equipment, including your computer.

Of course you know it's all just a misunderstanding, but you spend the next 12 months without your equipment. Your photography buisiness goes under, as you've lost all your equipment. You've no negs for reprints, and you can't even contact clients as all of your contact info was on the computer.

Of course after you've spent your entire savings on legal fee's your equpiment sudenly gets returned without an applogy, and you never hear from the police again. On the other hand word has got round the town that you've been investigated for taking dodgey (exact details a but vaugue) photo's, so you're probably getting bricks through your window by now...

Far fetched? Maybe, but if you think it can't happen, look at what happed in the late 80's early 90's to Steve Jackson, when the government decided it was time to get tough on computer crime. They passed some far reaching laws, that gave them the power to "get the bad guys", but left it pretty much up to them to decide who the bad guys were.

Ian

 

[WarEaglemtn]

"female breast means any portion below the areola".

So you are photographing in the street & a girl/woman in a tank top walks by & you snap an image. Due to the cleavage or loose shirt (or wearing a halter top or bikini) the breast section below the areola is showing... you now have a "federal crime". It doesn't matter that you don't intend to even print the image, you took it. A cop sees it & doesn't like photogs in the street for whatever reason. You are now the victim of "the system". Just like Jock Sturges, it may take years & tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees before you get your gear/prints/life back. Meanwhile you are a 'pornographer' and this nice little law is the justification for the stop.
Those who would 'sneak & peek' do need to be controlled. But as written the law is broad & loaded with language that will only make lawyers rich.

 

[Magic Rat]

`(2) the term `improper image', with respect to an individual, means an image, captured without the consent of that individual, of the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual;

`(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.'.


What part of this am I failing to understand? One of the great things about my country is we can "question everything". If passed, as someone has mentioned, this law will undergo all sorts of legal assaults to test it's constitutionality and validity. All the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. Then, maybe, we'll start to get answers as to whether or not renting a helicopter w/a 1000mm lens to take close ups of the cellulite on Julia Roberts ass while she's in her back yard is really "Investigative Reporting". Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Let's find out. If you like things the way they are, get involved to stop the bill.
I for one will not be moving anywhere to escape laws that are too far reaching, corrupt officials, or those who abuse power. Mainly 'cause there's no place to escape to.
The Rat

 

[mark]

This is getting stupid. Don't you folks read people's posts before you start your rants?

Aggie, made the point that she was the guardian of her children and therefore could give the permission for said photos of naked child in the tub. No law broken. Remember back in the eighties a picture of Brooke Shields as a child naked in the tub came out as an advertisement. Everyone screamed and cried but the parents authorized the photo. Maplethorpe's photo of the naked child of some famous person was never prosecuted because the parent gave permission. The line drawn for child pornography is very clear. This law does not change that. Your child may hate you later in life for showing said naked photos to perspective love interests as it would be damned embarrassing but there is nothing illegal about it. Under the new law there will be nothing illegal about it then either. Show me where, in the law, as it is written, that says this or even implies it.

Type in "Up skirt" on any search engine and you will see what this law is for. If you can't see that then you might need a few more reading comprehension lessons. Show me in the law where it says you can be stopped for taking the photo of a street scene where there is a chesty woman walking down the road with her wares flopping out. The law deals with the publication of the image. If you shoot the chesty woman with her wares flopping out as the main subject of the picture and publish it without near knowledge with the picture cropped to only show the chest area, hell yes you need to be smacked because you did not do your legal duty in obtaining a model release. If you are a working photographer you should know all of this already. If her wares are just a small part of larger street scene she has no complaint and should keep her wares better contained. having a "lab monkey"(you are a kind hearted person aren't you) report your photos would be laughable to the authorities unless the whole roll was of the woman or other questionable material. If you are worried about a "Lab Monkey" reporting you there are places that promise they won't report you for taking pictures of naked people. They have ads in the back of many photo mags.

As a teacher, having been involved in the investigation side of some really seedy people for doing nasties to their children or siblings, I can tell you that no one will knock on your door unless they have a really damn good reason too. The authorities have had the sh&t sued out of them so many times for making mistakes with common ordinary citizens. Some "lab monkey" might get the ball rolling but the authorities have to have a lot more than just a street scene where a woman's wares have inadvertently popped out, or a beech scene where a guy accidentally drops his towel and exposes his jewels at the exact moment you snap the shutter. And there wold have to be a lot more than just that one instant. That cop on the street is not going to give a damn if you shoot a picture of the street unless you are maybe being a "richard" and making a nuisance of yourself. It is time to quit being so damned paranoid. stop shooting upskirt shots of unknowing women and putting them on your website if you do not want to be smacked by this law.

Racial profiling is another matter altogether, and has nothing to do with this law. If a man of arab decent were taking a photo of Tony Blair's house you can be damned sure he would be taken notice of and maybe even stopped and questioned. How about a guy wearing an "IRA Rules" tee shirt. It is not right but it happens. As a person who was regularly profiled and even stopped and frisked on many occasions because of the length of his hair and torn up jeans and sleeveless tee I know how the person feels. It sucks but it is the state of the world we live in. Don't be "Donkey". treat people with the respect you want to be treated with, and you will be amazed at how easy it is to be left alone. If you have nothign to hde then you have nothing to worry about. Be a "richard" and you are asking to be messed with. Arrogance only breeds problems.

I went to college with an ex-NYPD officer. he said there was nothing he hated more than a person got so damned indignat that it made the police suspicious. That indignant arrogant behavior is what made him and his fellow officers dig deeper.

By the way I apologize to any richards we have here as I am not talking about you. Sean has some pretty clear guide lines stating how much profanity is not welcome. If you are so worried about this law and feel threatened by it go take pictures of trees and rocks, they don't complain.

I'll go put on the Armani asbestos suit now.

 

[Aggie]

BRAVO MARK

 

[Andy K]

Sadly lab monkeys reporting people to the authorities is much more prevalent here in Britain than you seem to think. BTW, when I say lab monkey, I refer to the slack jawed knuckle draggers manning one hour kiosks etc on a weekend, whilst working through college. I do not mean qualified lab techs in commercial labs. And yes, I am a very kind-hearted person, thank you for noticing.

There have been many cases here of people getting 'a knock on the door' because their photographs had 'questionable' material in them. There have even been cases of police waiting to meet people when they went to pick up their prints.
A friend used to ask me to photograph her son for her, I now refuse. I will not photograph children at all now. Thanks to political correctness and illeducated paranoia it is just not worth the hassle and suspicion to photograph kids. Likewise photographing at the beach on a sunny day when it is busy is also pretty much out of the question.

Someone here mentioned photographing at a public pool. That is not even a remote consideration here. The interfering authorities need very little excuse to knock on your door.

For these reasons I only photograph the inanimate or immediate family now.

I also pointed out that surely there is already law to deal with photographing people naked and unawares.

And just to clarify for you, as you seem to have not read my posts and missed the point: I used the example of the guy hassled for the audacity to photograph whilst in possession of brown skin to show how a new law was already being abused, just as this legislation, if it becomes law, will be abused.

 

[Magic Rat]

(Standing nearby with fire extinguisher.) :0

 

[Magic Rat]

I also pointed out that surely there is already law to deal with photographing people naked and unawares.QUOTE]


Possibly in your country, but other than a few local laws being considered here for cell phones the type of behavior mentioned by Mark, while frowned upon, has largely gone unpunished for reasons I have previously stated.
Which is probably why this is being submitted in the federal arena.
The Rat

 

[mark]

Andy,

Sounds like you need to concern yourself more with what is happening in your country, not what is happening across the "pond" (as my father in law calls the Atlantic).

It is too bad that you have let the political correct weenies dictate what you take pictures of and to shove you into such a limiting place, but then again it was you who allowed them to have that power over you.

If your neighbor wanted you to take questionable photos of her children then your own common sense would tell you to stay away. If the request was legitamate why the hell not take the pictures of her kids. I'ld even give her the negs as a thank you present for thinking I was a good photographer. Then again I don't live in England and if it is as bad you say it is I will not be moving there anytime soon.

The color of a person's skin, the length of a male's hair, the shortness of a woman's skirt or shirt have always been sources for people to be labled and profiled. Arabs are just the latest victims. I never said it was right, it is just the way it is. I worked night shift in a convenience store in a very seedy portion of Tucson AZ. The store's managment made it perfectly clear that if two or more african americans came into the store I was to watch them carefully because they would most likely steal something. How many Latinos, puertorican or other non-white or black individuals are stopped and searched or asked for their greencards. Yes laws will be abused and it is up to us as citizens to not stand for it. I understood your point but, my question to you is this. If you saw it happen would you stand up for that person's rights, right there on the street? I like to think that I would. It might not make a lot of difference in the grand scheme of things but it would to the person being questioned.

If you sit back and allow things to happen to you and you allow your freedom to be stifled then you are the only one you have to blame for that. Not the laws. I am happy to live in a country where, when I don't agree with something the governemnt does, I have the right to raise a ruccus, and a loud one at that. Stand up and say, "damnit I am going over to Suzy the Neighbor's house and am going to take a few shots of her kids because she asked me to and I am doing nothing wrong! and to hell with all you politically correct weenies". Now granted the powers that be may not hear me right away but as Arlo Guthry (SP) says if more than one person does it they might think it is a movement.

Sing it with me now...."You can have anything you want, at Alice's resteraunt, (except Alice)" Now grab your lenses, your camera bodies, tripods and other implements of deestruction put em in a red VW micro bus with the kids the wife and dog (if they are allowed) and go take some pictures at the beech.


By the way my hat goes of to those folks who work in the one hour kiosks trying to pay for college. Even if they are not paying for college It shows initiative on their part to not become a burden on society. But that is just my ultra liberal view of people and their motivations for putting up with jerks who look down on people because of where they work.

A wise man once said something about casting the first stone and not judging others.

 

[doughowk]

I've got nothing better to do while waiting for the hurricane to pass, so I'll wade into the debate.

Its always eye opening to see enlightenment liberals marching in hand with secular/religious right-wing authoritarians in governmental controls of individual behavior. The authoritarian viewpoint is understandable - man is basically evil and government & religious institutions are necessary to control said behavior. But why liberals? As John Gray & Isaiah Berlin have argued, enlightenment liberalism is actually a part of the 19th/20th century authoritarianism in their belief in a utopianism achieved thru recognition by all of the trueness of liberal beliefs. Those who haven't recognized said beliefs need education & control till achieving enlightenment. Whether fascist, nazi, communist, enlightenment liberal, they all have wound up creating a dystopia. As Gray/Berlin have argued, man's different viewpoints may be irreconcilable; and government's purpose both nationally & internationally is to ameliorate the conflict rather than deciding what viewpoint is correct. Laws regulating moral behavior exceeds governmental ability to select the "right" viewpoint.

 

[TPPhotog]

Doug - First of all I'd like to thank you for your posting and very well put. I understand what your saying though I doubt I could repeat it

Andy - In defense of "lab monkeys" have you ever considered how many are possibly better qualified and maybe even a better photographer than yourself. Just because circumstances mean they are doing these jobs it does not mean that they are an inferior race. Around here like in some parts of the states (and probably elsewhere) many people work in 1 hour labs; supermarkets; petrol stations or whatever it takes to support their art and keep a roof over their head. With the state of photography in this country where people give away pictures to their local rag to show off to their neighbours and in the process deprive those of us who freelance of a living, even I have and do take part-time work. I love the look on peoples faces who see me as a monkey when I point out that according to the city pages the company is doing blah, blah or when they see me in my real work covering a story and getting into the places they dream of.

Time for a cuppa before it stews again and I have to use it for toning

 

[mark]

I haven't seen so many 2 dollar words in one place since I was in college. How about using common english, so dummies like me might tip toe through your thoughts?

 

[Magic Rat]

Laws regulating moral behavior exceeds governmental ability to select the "right" viewpoint.

So this is strictly a moral issue and has nothing to do with public safety?
Just curious, let me know.
Thanks,
The Rat

 

[Flotsam]

I haven't seen so many 2 dollar words in one place since I was in college.

The way that I read it, the elected legislature mustn't make a law against secretly taking photos of a persons naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast without their permission or knowledge because... it is beyond their abilitiy to determine that it isn't "right" to secretly take photos of a persons naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast without their permission or knowledge.

Personally, I have to agree with the Liberals, Conservatives, Moderates, Religious, Secular, and, I suppose, any Nazis and Communists that believe that a person should enjoy the basic right to not have their genitals surrepticiously photographed and distributed for the pleasure and profit of others. It is not legislating morality any more than a law that says that you are not allowed to take someone's wallet (or worse, their camera), without their permission is legislating morality.

It just sounds like a moral issue because of the genitailia .

 

[WarEaglemtn]

http://www.photopermit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13

Try typing in the above link & then tell me the law won't be abused at will.
This one is on the photopermit.org page & gives info from two who were arrested for photographing 'street scenes' in a public location.

Right or wrong, the cop has cost these guys a fortune, a night or more in jail & untold problems in the future should they ever be stopped. They will show up on the computers as child molesters or sex crime suspects, both sure to cause any officer who does so much as run their license plates while driving behind them to stop them in the name of 'public safety'.

The idea behind the law is laudable but the wording is a legal quagmire.

 

[Aggie]

Something bothered me about some of the assertions here. Orginally the stroy of the kid in Seattle that was hassled by the police was brought up. I reread the account. No where in it did it mention the color of his skin. It did mention he is arab looking. That was also how I stated it, arab looking, in my response. From there the next thing that happened was it was taken as it was about the color of his skin. Further it was changed to his skin being of a brown color. At no time did I say such a thing. As far as I know arabl looking is more of an olive complexion with dark to black hair. This could also fit many other cultures too, ie Italian.

What this is showing is the distortion of what is said. Go back and reread the thread and see the progression. This thread is no longer about the right to photograph, it is about who preceives the right to do what. One side is looking at it from a common good for a group. the other is looking at it as the good of the individual. Along the way name calling enters. ie, lab monkies, communists, (and the ultimate bad name on apug) religious. Lets add in knuckle dragging and telling people they can not be part of the discussion. Dose it with illeducated, use terms like paranoia. What do we really get? angry at the other apugger. Is this really what a group of grown people want? T%his thread is just leading into the same tired abyss as all the others that start from a seemingly good thought about photographic rights. Discussion is one thing, digressing into the you're evil because.... serves no good.

AND, no I will not shy away from a political debate. I have the same rights as everyone else. No I will not move to North Korea. If so then everyone else here should be asked to do the same. BTW isn't a religious conservative outspoken communist an oxymoron in terms?

 

[TPPhotog]

Aggie is right we have drifted way off point here. If the law in the states protects the individuals privacy and stops the cheap long lens shots some magazines over here publish every week / month then it has to be a good thing. At least it's better than our latest law to theoretically protect those under 18yrs. Over here even with parental / guardian and "child"s permission pictures which are possibly a little risqué will land us on the child protection register. Our law does not even define what is or isn't allowed yet at the same time 16 and 17 year old models are walking the catwalk

As for myself since some idiot of a politician trying to make a point ran over to me and pushed a camera in my face because he wanted to make a point against a store I was in (and he nearly got decked for his troubles) - I always ask permission now as I've been there on the other side of the lens.

 

[c6h6o3]

Let's all just be careful out there. The Bill of Rights is being shredded before our eyes, and the police will become more capriciously abusive as time goes by. I'd hate to see any fellow APUGers get arrested just because they happened to catch some nubile cleavage on film, intentionally or otherwise. It's just not worth it.

 

[TPPhotog]

Let's all just be careful out there. The Bill of Rights is being shredded before our eyes, and the police will become more capriciously abusive as time goes by. I'd hate to see any fellow APUGers get arrested just because they happened to catch some nubile cleavage on film, intentionally or otherwise. It's just not worth it.

Looking at your version I think your going to be OK, but in theory catching "some nubile cleavage" in the UK could lead to prosecution; loss of reputation (and possible livelihood) and on the child abuse register which would prevent us working with children. Not to mention entry on the register could mean ones own children being considered in need of protection

 

[mark]

It is too bad that those guys are getting the shaft. I never said there were not going to be abuses. The sad fact of any law is that those who are charged with enforcing it are not fully informed, and until they are we will continue to be hasselled on the street with our cameras. Just look at Aggies Cannon shooting incident. This is where we as citizens need to stand up. I hope those guys find a probono lawyer and get this taken care of. It must suck. At a public venue there is no expectation of privacy, except in the bathroom.

On the other hand if I had a daughter whom they were getting close up shots of I'ld be pretty pissed cuz that that ain't right either. They themselves said the shots were portrait type shots. That means they were selectivly isolating the girls. I bet the girls would have said yes if they asked. I used to do it all the time as a teenager at rock shows. Never got turned down and I'm not good looking, at all. But then again i told my wife if we had a daughter I would be getting a gun and a conceled (sp) weapons permit.

 

[c6h6o3]

Looking at your version I think your going to be OK, but in theory catching "some nubile cleavage" in the UK could lead to prosecution; loss of reputation...

I was of course referring only to the US, where the legislation is being contemplated. While I feel that this particular law is a good one, it is certain to be abused just like all the others having to do with personal liberty. It's not the law that holds sway here; it's public sentiment. Mass mood in the US is turning from one of optimism and inclusiveness into a divisive and belligerent mindset. The best antidote to the phenomenon is an awareness of it.

 

[jovo]

What this is showing is the distortion of what is said. Go back and reread the thread and see the progression.

AND, no I will not shy away from a political debate. I have the same rights as everyone else. No I will not move to North Korea. If so then everyone else here should be asked to do the same. BTW isn't a religious conservative outspoken communist an oxymoron in terms?

The most identifiable characteristic of this thread thus far is, indeed, the unwillingness to really, and accurately read what others have written.

The second most identifiable characteristic is the willingness of some to act as common scolds. Man I hate that! If you don't like what's been presented, then fight back with clarity and passion. If you don't want to read what's been written, however, well then just bugger off: leave those who wish to have at it...to have at it!!