Congress looking at 'video voyeurism'

[CShine]

WASHINGTON -- Cell phone cameras are useful for the unusual moment that demands a picture, like when a congressional aide pulled one out of a pocket to get a snapshot of Michael Jackson strolling the halls of Congress.

Some people, however, are using them for nefarious purposes, such as taking pictures beneath women's skirts and posting them on the Internet. Lawmakers want to make taking such surreptitious photos and other illicit uses of video technology a federal crime punishable by up to a year in jail.

"No one should have to go through the embarrassment of being secretly taped by an electronic peeping Tom, or seeing those pictures turn up on the Internet," said Rep. Mike Oxley, R-Ohio, a former FBI agent who is an advocate for the bill.

While there are no official studies on the intrusive use of camera phones, lawmakers and anti-crime advocates say "video voyeurism" is a serious crime that deserves a serious response by the government.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/aptech_story.asp?category=1700&slug=Congress%20Camphones

[RC]

1. They want serous crime?

Look no further than the white House. That is where some real heavy serous response should take place.

[squidbro]

2. It isn't video voyeurism that a former FBI agent would be worried over

I don't see why this behavior necessarily needs to be made a criminal activity.

Does that mean paparazzi shots of celebrities become punishable by prison time?

This is a civil matter that should be decided in civil courts. If a person's rights are violated, then lawsuits should be the correct recourse.

I might be a cynic, but I see it as a way for the government to further infringe upon our first amendment rights.

So, when is it then legal to take photographs if this were to become law? Perhaps when it leads to major embarrassment for the government like the situation at Abu Gharib? Perhaps such a law would prevent such photographs from being taken in the first place. And if someone did take them and hand them over to the likes of "60 Minutes" the photographer could be tried for a criminal offense when the truly criminal activity was done by the people being photographed.

I think this one has the makings of a bad law. Let the civil courts decide, not the criminal courts.

[murielm99]

3. ABC news had a sneaky little segment about picture phones

this evening.

I am sure they just want to soften up people for an intrusive law regarding those phones. And they could throw in a nasty little amendment about digital cameras, too.

We can't have people embarrasing the government now, can we?