17 Y.o. Boy Who Filmed Female Students Without Their Permission May Face Charges In Jo. Co., K S

[gatekeeper]

I love moral reasoning cases:

This one's still burning up our newscasts. So far, no one's saying exactly what all this kid is accused of filming, but upskirt seems to be the complaint that went to the DA's office for possible charges.

I find this one particularly interesting because the in the Tech Age, we (in my area) usually only go after kids/people whose pics/videos have more definitive sexual content.

So far, just the issue that this kid was filming his female classmates around school in public places without their permission, period, has become quite a hot button issue.

A copy of the email that went out to district parents follows the article... Hmmm...We live in a tech heavy world, so are we ever going to be able to control this?

He didn't ask their permission, but he apparently didn't approach them in public either. The argument at this point is, did he do it intentionally, and if he did, what parameter are we going to enforce on this kind of thing at school?

And, what about people taking upskirt outside school? You see where I'm going with this. What "laws" are we actually going to be able to create that any of us couldn't break anytime we wanted to and no one would ever be the wiser?

http://fox4kc.com/2016/05/03/high-s...ng-inappropriate-photos-videos-of-classmates/

 

[Sejanus]

Gads, in my day pervy kids hid under the bleachers and took their chances.
If caught on the spot...ass kicking ensued.
Punishment handled on the spot.
This high tech perversity is just....well it is beyond bad

 

[cubby]

I think the phone should be locked up while school is in session, except for maybe lunch, none of them need a phone while "studying".

 

[Sevens My Charm]

@gatekeeper 's article

He said the student apparently looked under the skirts of 'numerous female students.' Tennis also said 'there's no mistake about it.' They believe it was an intentional act.

 

[gatekeeper]

I've been waiting for these types of cases to finally get some press to see where we're at with personal privacy laws.

I doubt they're going to release any stills, but I'm really curious to see if this was upskirt up close and personal, or more like the old mirror on the toe of your tennis shoe trick, or if there was an appreciable amount of distance between the panty peeper/his cam and the girls.

Even though the police can naturally say "there's no doubt about it" when it comes to intent because they see pervs all the time, that's something a defense attorney, based on the distance, evidence, testimony, etc., may be able to shred pretty easily at this point.

One of these days (my guess is easily within my lifetime, fate excepted), these kinds of cases are going to start making case law and setting precedent on how far we can go with our cell cams, watch cams, lots of other types of cams that can easily be used to snap pics anonymously.

How far away does someone have to be to ask my permission to snap an intentional pic of me? Are there certain parts of the body that are not allowed to be photographed, and why?

If a cheerleader jumps up and her skirt flyies overr her panties/tights and someone takes a deliberate picture of it, or is running video of it, is it illegal?

So, if Daisy Dukes come back in style (like they ever left, ha!) and a 17 y.o. boy has a butt cheek fetish, is he allowed to snap pics of cute girls wearing shorts with their butt cheeks showing?

Traffic cams aren't random, they target drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, etc., others out in public at specific place, at a specific time, all the time. Those are all intentional pics that are used in LE and no one has to permission to film anyone.

Things that make you go, hmmm...

 

[cubby]

The way I understand it in a public place with others around you, you should have no kind of expectation of privacy, if you are standing on the street corner naked, then I don't think it should be illegal to take photos, but if you're completely clothed and some jerk manages to get a nice pic up your skirt, then that should be illegal, since that part of you was not on public display for anyone at that moment.

 

[LarzlovesJahi]

I think the phone should be locked up while school is in session, except for maybe lunch, none of them need a phone while "studying".

I agree with you...but think that the logistics of this would be very difficult.

 

[Athena]

It's illegal in my state. This is how it is worded:

(2) A person commits the crime of voyeurism if, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, he or she knowingly views, photographs, or films:
(a) Another person without that person's knowledge and consent while the person being viewed, photographed, or filmed is in a place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy; or
(b) The intimate areas of another person without that person's knowledge and consent and under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether in a public or private place.

(a) "Intimate areas" means any portion of a person's body or undergarments that is covered by clothing and intended to be protected from public view.

So, daisy dukes are fair game. Shots of underwear covered by a skirt are not, unless that skirt is so short, the underwear can be seen without going out of your way.