Massachusetts Court Says 'Upskirt' Photos Are Legal 519
cold fjord writes with this CNN report: "Massachusetts' highest court ruled Wednesday that it is not illegal to secretly photograph underneath a person's clothing — a practice known as "upskirting" — prompting one prosecutor to call for a revision of state law. The high court ruled that the practice did not violate the law because the women who were photographed while riding Boston public transportation were not nude or partially nude."
Now that's news for nerds (Score:5, Funny)
USA! USA! (Score:5, Funny)
In Other News... (Score:5, Funny)
Police soon noted an uprise in kilt-wearing flashers~
photon collector (Score:0, Funny)
Just collecting publicly available photons...
Re:A new law in not what is needed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:A new law in not what is needed (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe they have cameras in their shoes...
. . . please don't give Google any more ideas about where to mount their glasses . . .
Re:Given that interpretation of what the law says. (Score:4, Funny)
They could print an EULA on their panties. "By photographing these panties you agree..."
Re:A new law in not what is needed (Score:5, Funny)
A judge's job is to interpret the existing law, not make stuff up to conform to what the law should be....
I agree with that.
... that makes the legislature which write the laws .... OMG, PROGRAMERS! They're one of us!!
So judges are effectively a CPU, simply executing what's written. (GOTO but not DWIW.)
But then
Re:A new law in not what is needed (Score:5, Funny)
people can wear skirts all they like, and choose how much or little they want to expose of themselves in public. if you re concerned about some out of focus dark weird angle shot of your panties, i'd suggest not wearing a skirt.
Yes, but don't we want to encourage the wearing of skirts? It's practically the only bright spot about taking public transportation.
Re:A new law in not what is needed (Score:1, Funny)
Oh noes - not a call for PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!! Say it isn't so, mister!
Re:Does not make sense (Score:4, Funny)
Skirts make an assumption that nobody will have a line-of-sight view from directly beneath you -- an assumption that was never entirely valid, but is a whole lot less valid now that technology has given people access to discreet digital cameras that they can easily position at floor level.
In some respects it's like circumventing DRM - an effort was made to conceal (wearing a skirt), but someone deliberately positioned themselves in a abnormal position closer to the floor in order to create a line-of-sight that would not generally be available through normal activity.
Re:Now that's news for nerds (Score:5, Funny)
if you are not private or protected, you are public.
(sorry, been doing c++ too long, I think).