NationStates Jolt Archive

An American appeals court has ruled that you do not have the right to privacy when you are shopping at places like Target.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337173,00.html

I agree that at places like Target, Albertsons, Wal Mart people do not have a right to privacy because those places are not private, they are very public. The common argument used to say people in stores have a right to privacy is that a supermarket is just like a home. But I submit that a supermarket is very different from a home in that a home does not have tens thousands of strangers going in and out of it at all hours of the day whereas a store does.

I wonder why they didn't get him on the sexual exploitation of a child? Isn't the age of consent in OK 18? They could have nailed him with that and he'd be a registered sex offender and known as a child rapist forever. Instead, they used to fake privacy argument so now a kiddie predator gets to walk. In the meantime, Americans now have new rights.

How you explain they charged him with invasion of privacy instead producing kiddie porn?

Ok, so take him to court for sexual harassment. Clear cut case there.

"In a dissent, Appeals Judge Gary Lumpkin wrote that "what this decision does is state to women who desire to wear dresses that there is no expectation of privacy as to what they have covered with their dress."

"In other words, it is open season for peeping Toms in public places who want to look under a woman's dress," Lumpkin wrote."

Girls, some advice. They're called shorts. Use them when ever you want to wear a dress or skirt. Avoid mini skirts cause if you wear those, every person on earth is going to want to photograph your rear and you can't control who does it when you are in a public place.

I might argue that while she may not have a reasonable expectation to privacy in a walmart, she might have a reasonable expectation to privacy under her clothes.

Didn't they ban a type of video camera a few years ago that could see through clothes?

"In a dissent, Appeals Judge Gary Lumpkin wrote that "what this decision does is state to women who desire to wear dresses that there is no expectation of privacy as to what they have covered with their dress."

"In other words, it is open season for peeping Toms in public places who want to look under a woman's dress," Lumpkin wrote."

Girls, some advice. They're called shorts. Use them when ever you want to wear a dress or skirt. Avoid mini skirts cause if you wear those, every person on earth is going to want to photograph your rear and you can't control who does it when you are in a public place.

See, thats still sexual assualt though. I dont understand why they didnt charge him with that. He got off on a technicality. Because she wasnt in a private place, he wasnt a peeping tom. But its still sexual harassment/assualt, and where you are doest mean jack shit when charged with that.


If a molest a girl on a crowded street, I cant use "She was in public!" as my defense.

""I think it is a scenario where the law has not caught up with technology," Adams said"

I smell a bull. Technology has nothing to do with case. A camera is a camera. Behavior is still behavior.

You can't use technology as an excuse for bad behavior as Mr. Adams seems to be doing.

Either something is wrong or it isn't. Right and wrong do not depend on the level of technology.

I might argue that while she may not have a reasonable expectation to privacy in a walmart, she might have a reasonable expectation to privacy under her clothes.

Didn't they ban a type of video camera a few years ago that could see through clothes?

The manufacturers changed how they made the cameras so they couldn't do that anymore. No laws were made in US to ban them. In Russia they have law though. If you have x ray camera, you go to gulag.

I might argue that while she may not have a reasonable expectation to privacy in a walmart, she might have a reasonable expectation to privacy under her clothes.

Didn't they ban a type of video camera a few years ago that could see through clothes?

Exactly what I was going to say. If she was shopping naked and he took photos, that's different (although probably also illegal on her part). If she's wearing a skirt and he has to invade her personal space and make an effort to see under it, it's the same as installing cameras in a bathroom--public or not.

See, thats still sexual assualt though. I dont understand why they didnt charge him with that. He got off on a technicality. Because she wasnt in a private place, he wasnt a peeping tom. But its still sexual harassment/assualt, and where you are doest mean jack shit when charged with that.


If a molest a girl on a crowded street, I cant use "She was in public!" as my defense.

I would agree that deliberately sticking camera under person's clothing is deliberate invasion of privacy. But if you are wearing miniskirt and some dude takes a picture of your rear from like ten feet away, it not invasion and it's not sexual assault. Sexual assault is when they put camera or hand or anything else under your clothes.

But yeah, he did walk up to her and place camera, physically, underneath her skirt. So yeah, sex assualt on a minor.

The manufacturers changed how they made the cameras so they couldn't do that anymore. No laws were made in US to ban them. In Russia they have law though. If you have x ray camera, you go to gulag.

In Soviet Russia, clothes see through you! :eek:

Exactly what I was going to say. If she was shopping naked and he took photos, that's different (although probably also illegal on her part). If she's wearing a skirt and he has to invade her personal space and make an effort to see under it, it's the same as installing cameras in a bathroom--public or not.

There are public bathrooms in US?

In Soviet Russia, clothes see through you! :eek:

Awesome!

There are public bathrooms in US?

In City Hall. *nod*

I want to throw this out there to calm everyone down a tad;

notice the courts at play: "Court of Criminal Appeals" and "Tulsa County District." These are state courts, not federal courts. This decision is only in effect in Oklahoma and therefore affects a minimum of the people here. Now that that's out of the way, continue calling the ruling idiotic.

""I think it is a scenario where the law has not caught up with technology," Adams said"

I smell a bull. Technology has nothing to do with case. A camera is a camera. Behavior is still behavior.

You can't use technology as an excuse for bad behavior as Mr. Adams seems to be doing.

Either something is wrong or it isn't. Right and wrong do not depend on the level of technology.
Actually it has everything to do with the case. It sounds like a place where the state legislature hasn't closed loopholes that have come about due to technology and the DA had to get creative for a charge.

In Russia, all bathrooms are private. Even public locations. The sentence for violating persons privacy in bathroom, in Russia, is prison labor making shoes for Nike for 40 years.

In Russia, all bathrooms are private. Even public locations. The sentence for violating persons privacy in bathroom, in Russia, is prison labor making shoes for Nike for 40 years.

Yay capitalism! :D

Actually it has everything to do with the case. It sounds like a place where the state legislature hasn't closed loopholes that have come about due to technology and the DA had to get creative for a charge.

Then why he not charge man with pedophilia? The victim was only 16.

In Russia, all bathrooms are private. Even public locations. The sentence for violating persons privacy in bathroom, in Russia, is prison labor making shoes for Nike for 40 years.

Well. There's still an expectation of privacy in a stall in a bathroom, but outside of that? Not really. I was at a club with some friends last weekend and when I went to use the bathroom, the door was propped wide open and there were no doors on the stalls with urinals, so anyone who walked by could get an eyeful.

I thought that was the sentence in China for saying the words "human rights". *flees*

But if man look at other man, member, it prove him gay. is it not?

Then why he not charge man with pedophilia? The victim was only 16.
Because at age 16 it wasn't a case of pedophilia, which is for pre-puberty, not to mention that it's not a crime to be a pedophile, just acting on it sexually or position of child porn.

I agree that at places like Target, Albertsons, Wal Mart people do not have a right to privacy because those places are not private, they are very public.

Let me put it this way. By the ruling of these judges, it's alright if I took your wallet, copied down all the details in it, and then gave it back to you, as long as you didn't realize you were being pickpocketed.

It's not really any different from taking pictures of a woman under her skirt.

Let me put it this way. By the ruling of these judges, it's alright if I took your wallet, copied down all the details in it, and then gave it back to you, as long as you didn't realize you were being pickpocketed.

It's not really any different from taking pictures of a woman under her skirt.

Actually there is difference. With stealing of personal info it's ID theft. With photographing of under clothes its public humilation.

Actually there is difference. With stealing of personal info it's ID theft. With photographing of under clothes its public humilation.

If I use that information, yes, ID theft. If I only copy it down, nope.

If I use that information, yes, ID theft. If I only copy it down, nope.

why would you copy if you didn't intend to use it?

why would you copy if you didn't intend to use it?

Because I intend to make a point with it. If I pickpocketed your wallet while in public, made copies of its contents, returned it without you realizing, I'd be as law abiding as Mr upskirt camera

They try to charge people with bullshit crimes; they are going to get bullshit results. Good on the judges for ruling that the aisles of a massive shopping center are not a private place. Besides, if they had ruled differently, they would have to take down the 5 trillion cameras they have all around the store because of what they might pick up.

They try to charge people with bullshit crimes; they are going to get bullshit results. Good on the judges for ruling that the aisles of a massive shopping center are not a private place. Besides, if they had ruled differently, they would have to take down the 5 trillion cameras they have all around the store because of what they might pick up.

Do you even know what this guy was being charged with? And why?

Uhh, shouldn't the girl press charges for sexual harrasment?
And, like someone else said, if she was underage, isn't it "kiddie porn"?

I can't believe they dropped the case. The law is supposed to put people who are actually dangerous away.

Do you even know what this guy was being charged with?
The wrong crime. Instead of charging him with one of the myriad of other sexual offense laws that probably would have applied here, they tried the peeping tom law which has a qualifier of "privacy" which a Target shopping center aisle does not meet.

The wrong crime. Instead of charging him with one of the myriad of other sexual offense laws that probably would have applied here, they tried the peeping tom law which has a qualifier of "privacy" which a Target shopping center aisle does not meet.

I second that.

Uhh, shouldn't the girl press charges for sexual harrasment?
And, like someone else said, if she was underage, isn't it "kiddie porn"?
It wasn't a sexual pose or situation. She was just standing there, and she was shopping. Even if she was going commando that still wouldn't be kiddie porn under US law.

The wrong crime. Instead of charging him with one of the myriad of other sexual offense laws that probably would have applied here, they tried the peeping tom law which has a qualifier of "privacy" which a Target shopping center aisle does not meet.

Although I think that it would, to a reasonable person anyways, be a normal expectation to not have someone trying to photograph your "private parts"

It wasn't a sexual pose or situation. She was just standing there, and she was shopping. Even if she was going commando that still wouldn't be kiddie porn under US law.

But she was just a 16 yr old child. And he photographed her undies for sexual reasons. How is that not kiddie porn?

http://rcfp.org/photoguide/states/california.html

In California, I can photograph you if you are in your doorway and I can see from the street.
I can take your picture and publish it without your consent as long as I dont make a profit off it, or use it to portray you in a false light.

Some emergency situations are private.

A dance club is not a private place and you if you go to one you can be legally photographed and shown on TV. Maybe that's why bounders confiscate cameras and cell phones before they let you in.

Well, if someone photographed my daughter from that position in a public place, I would take that as a free license to see how far I could shove the phone up his ass.

To me it would be massive provocation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provocation_(legal)

http://rcfp.org/photoguide/states/california.html

In California, I can photograph you if you are in your doorway and I can see from the street.
I can take your picture and publish it without your consent as long as I dont make a profit off it, or use it to portray you in a false light.
That's terrible. Shit like that would most likely be illegal over here.

where's that?

The wrong crime. Instead of charging him with one of the myriad of other sexual offense laws that probably would have applied here, they tried the peeping tom law which has a qualifier of "privacy" which a Target shopping center aisle does not meet.

Exactly, the charged him with the wrong crime, and he got off on that charge, rightfully.

He would have been convicted on a sex offense law.

Just for kicks, let's look at the actual statute at issue, 21 OC 1171 (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69645):

A. Every person who hides, waits or otherwise loiters in the vicinity of any private dwelling house, apartment building, any other place of residence, or in the vicinity of any locker room, dressing room, restroom or any other place where a person has a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the unlawful and willful intent to watch, gaze, or look upon any person in a clandestine manner, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor. The violator shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a term of not more than one (1) year, or by a fine not to exceed Five thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.

B. Every person who uses photographic, electronic or video equipment in a clandestine manner for any illegal, illegitimate, prurient, lewd or lascivious purpose with the unlawful and willful intent to view, watch, gaze or look upon any person without the knowledge and consent of such person when the person viewed is in a place where there is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy, or who publishes or distributes any image obtained from such act, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a felony. The violator shall be punished by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a term of not more than five (5) years, or by a fine not exceeding Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.
Laws 1959, p. 112, § 1; Amended by Laws 2001, SB 45, c. 386, § 2, emerg. eff. July 1, 2001

Unfortunately the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals decision doesn't appear to be available on their website and I can't find any other links to a copy to see what the court actually said.

I am disappointed that it appears the prosecutors didn't in this case pursue other charges. While I think some of you are overestimating the scope of some sex offense laws, I do think there were probably other statutes that this guy violated.

I am disappointed that it appears the prosecutors didn't in this case pursue other charges. While I think some of you are overestimating the scope of some sex offense laws, I do think there were probably other statutes that this guy violated.

Exactly, I dont think you can hit him with kiddie porn, but Im 99.9% sure there was a sexual assualt of some kind.

Seems they charged him under the wrong statute. That's sloppy work by the district attorney.
While the geographic location might not have been private, I would say that typically the area covered by clothes on a person is private. It's really fucked up when people get off on a technicality.

But she was just a 16 yr old child. And he photographed her undies for sexual reasons. How is that not kiddie porn?

Maybe Llewdor's justifying it. :rolleyes:

Seems they charged him under the wrong statute. That's sloppy work by the district attorney.
While the geographic location might not have been private, I would say that typically the area covered by clothes on a person is private. It's really fucked up when people get off on a technicality.

What gets me about the "not being a private place" thing, is that I've been told off for having a camera in Target before. Even one of the most public places in this city is partiallly privately-owned, and I've nearly been physically removed for having a video camera! This place isn't a "public place", and even if it were, it's not justification for a man to take a sexual photograph of a 16 year old girl.

Maybe Llewdor's justifying it. :rolleyes:

Wow, that was bitchy and uncalled for. He's right. Its not kiddng porn under the law. You may not like that it isnt, I dont like that it isnt, and Im sure he doesnt like that it isnt, but its not.

Maybe Llewdor's justifying it. :rolleyes:

I don't think Llewdor means any such thing. He is merely saying that child pornography statutes probably don't cover this activity. AFAIK, he is correct.

That doesn't mean that what Mr. Ferrante did was OK, only that it may not be prohibited by those specific laws.

Ok- I accept you cant expect privacy in the store, but I think we all expect privacy beneath our clothing and we dont expect scum bags to find clever ways of defeating our clothing

If it were my daughter, I'd be glad he got off.

I'd deal with him later when he was beck to being a nobody.

In California, I can photograph you if you are in your doorway and I can see from the street.
I can take your picture and publish it without your consent as long as I dont make a profit off it, or use it to portray you in a false light.

That's terrible. Shit like that would most likely be illegal over here.

where's that?

Here in the Netherlands you could use what's called your 'portrait rights' to prevent having a picture of you that was taken in a public place used like that. Even for non-commercial use, you own the right to your own image, unless you sign it away, and could sue the person publishing that photograph.

There are exceptions to this, of course. If you just happen to be an 'accidental' figure in the photograph, like at the beach when a news crew does a report on how busy it is there, then you can't use your portrait rights to stop it. But if the camera crew focuses on you, and your image becomes part of the story as an example, then you can. Of course the damage will have already been done, unless you see it and stop them from airing that clip.

How you explain they charged him with invasion of privacy instead producing kiddie porn?
Possibly, but without more information this is only a guess, it's because his camera held images taken from people who were not underage, or they couldn't prove that all the photos were from minors.

now if they got a search warrant for his computer...

I second that.
I third that.

I don't think Llewdor means any such thing. He is merely saying that child pornography statutes probably don't cover this activity. AFAIK, he is correct.

That doesn't mean that what Mr. Ferrante did was OK, only that it may not be prohibited by those specific laws.
agreed... on all counts.

If it were my daughter, I'd be glad he got off.I wonder how often he'll get off from picture :p

I don't think Llewdor means any such thing. He is merely saying that child pornography statutes probably don't cover this activity. AFAIK, he is correct.

That doesn't mean that what Mr. Ferrante did was OK, only that it may not be prohibited by those specific laws.
I might go so far as to say we have no cause to object to his behaviour, as he was following the rules that govern society (the law).

Then the rules should change.

The manufacturers changed how they made the cameras so they couldn't do that anymore. No laws were made in US to ban them. In Russia they have law though. If you have x ray camera, you go to gulag.

Also, in Soviet Russia, if x-ray camera has you, gulag goes to you!






I'm sorry...but I felt it must be done.

Wow, that was bitchy and uncalled for. He's right. Its not kiddng porn under the law. You may not like that it isnt, I dont like that it isnt, and Im sure he doesnt like that it isnt, but its not.

He said "It wasn't a sexual pose or situation", and if he considers taking a photograph up someone's skirt isn't sexual, that's rather... strange.

Also, it was actually someone else who used the term "kiddie porn" to begin with, thus the quotation marks.

I don't think Llewdor means any such thing. He is merely saying that child pornography statutes probably don't cover this activity. AFAIK, he is correct.

That doesn't mean that what Mr. Ferrante did was OK, only that it may not be prohibited by those specific laws.

*nods*

Didn't they ban a type of video camera a few years ago that could see through clothes?
No, it was just invented (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=551464)...

No, it was just invented (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=551464)...There is at the very least the suggestion Sony already had a consumer camera in 1998 that could 'see through' clothing, to some extend, http://www.india-today.com/ctoday/20011001/marvels.html