of all the possible deviant acts, i find this to be one of, if not THE most harmless. not my cup of tea but hats off to all the upskirters out there who had a dream and went for the gold.
Infrared doesn't really work as x-ray vision anyway... it just makes some coloured fabrics look as if they were white, so if they're thin and colored, you may notice they're a bit transparent if there's no colour to them.
(There are a lot of legitimate things to shoot in IR, like money, pop, trees. Lots of things look weird or surprising!)
Not that I am for this, but why technically is it illegal? It's not like he set it up in a changing room or rest room where privacy is expected. And one gust of wind could have given many others the same view of what he was catching on his ipod. Again, not that I am for this, just wondering what law is being broken.
@mdoublej: I'd like to point out that if a person gets arrested for doing something, it's pretty logical to assume that that something is illegal in that country.
@mdoublej: It would be a class G felony in the State of Delaware (okay, it's the only state I actually know the answer in, so hey, I at least know it for one state). It's the violation of privacy statute, 11 Del. C. ยง 1335(a)(7), which reads:
(a) A person is guilty of violation of privacy when, except as authorized by law, the person:
(7) Secretly or surreptitiously videotapes, films, photographs or otherwise records another person under or through that person's clothing for the purpose of viewing the body of or the undergarments worn by that other person;
Punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment. So, if nothing else, don't do this in Delaware.
@Cogito Ergo Bibo: Gotcha, so it is a specific law on the books. Didn't want to end up sounding like a perv, but since I know there isn't an expectation of privacy in public, and he never touched the women, I wondered what they charged the guy with.
@mdoublej: Actually, I'm with Gene on this one. There IS a reasonable expectation of privacy for women's undies in public. We wake up in the morning, put a skirt over them and do not presume that they will be visible. Unless something entirely unexpected or intentional on someone's part occurs, undies are not visible. To presume no reasonable expectation of privacy is to presume that every woman has consented to having some perv memorialize a shot of her silky underthings capable of redistribution (or at least capable of being shown to a buddy via the phone itself and certainly capable of being viewed over and over in the privacy of said perv's own home while doing what we all know he's doing).
Can't speak for the rest of the ladies, but I never signed off on that.
I for one do not understand why someone in Japan hasn't released a laser panty, a la rich man's boat, so that it will blast any camera trying to get a peek at the kitties.
@Azst~Aznslackertype: That type of approach makes it seem like upskirting is the fault of women... I've heard the same said by very orthodox muslim men about... well, all types of clothing that isn't a full-on veil. I think it's best to say "hey, let's ban cameras before we ban types of clothing", hehe.
@OCEntertainment: Hey I have no problem with most types of garment. In the end, it makes no difference when it's unzipped/buckled/buttoned. I still stand behind my kick-perv-in-the-crotch idea. Kicking people in the crotch for doing pervy things is a wholly righteous thing to do, and their facial expressions and writhing is an added bonus.
With the plethora of tiny camera gadgets that have been available for so long, the Pervatasaurus decided to go with a nano? In the words of the Mighty Kim Jong Il: Why is e'ryone so fuckin' stoopid??
09/29/09
09/29/09
(There are a lot of legitimate things to shoot in IR, like money, pop, trees. Lots of things look weird or surprising!)
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
(a) A person is guilty of violation of privacy when, except as authorized by law, the person:
(7) Secretly or surreptitiously videotapes, films, photographs or otherwise records another person under or through that person's clothing for the purpose of viewing the body of or the undergarments worn by that other person;
Punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment. So, if nothing else, don't do this in Delaware.
09/29/09
09/29/09
Can't speak for the rest of the ladies, but I never signed off on that.
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
Girls are supposed to wear skirts, and guys are supposed to keep their perversions secret until public scandal breaks.
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
AHA!
Then, Pervs should be punished and forced to up-skirt video tape 24 Bag Pipers in full outfit for 24 hrs.
If the Pipes don't drive them insane, the video sure will!
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
Rest assured, though....they're probably on Jesus Diaz' hard drive by now.
09/29/09
07/10/09
07/10/09
Reset Password
Please enter your email address to have your password reset.
Register
Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.
Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.
Submit Your Comment
You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.
See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.
Login with your Facebook or Gizmodo account.
Sign up here.
-
- Archives
- About
- Advertising
- Legal
- Help
- Report a Bug
- FAQ
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.