Video Voyeurism Prevention Act Aimed At Curbing Camera Phone Use

[Mike Temporale]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,117035,tk,dn072304X,00.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,117035,tk,dn072304X,00.asp</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Cell phone camera voyeurism will soon be a federal offense if the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004 continues its nearly unopposed march through Congress. The bill, designed to protect people's privacy from prying camera phones, needs only to pass the House of Representatives and to be signed by the president to become law. While Congress didn't consider it before recessing this week, proponents say chances are good the bill could pass this year. Still, cell phone manufacturers, while not actively opposing it, are quietly skeptical of laws that criminalize cell phone camera snooping."</i><br /><br />This sounds like an interesting idea. While it doesn't prevent people from using their camera phones, if you are caught using it in the wrong way, you'll have to pay the price. I guess it works in much the same way as speeding. Nobody is preventing your car from reaching speeds in excess of the limit, but it is illegal, and if you get caught, you pay the price. For most people that is reason enough not to break the law. It will be interesting to see if this does deter people.

[Kris Kumar]

Laws are good..but they are often hijacked by lawyers and people who just want to make some quick buck (get rich the easy way).

I still feel that the law should mandate that the phone models come with and without the cameras. I would not mind paying $10 more for a phone with identical features except for the camera.

The heightened security and privacy concerns would only mean that there would be bans on camera phones in a lot of public places soon. And just because my MPx220 comes with my camera on it, I will be forced to leave the phone at the entrance or in my car :-(

I hope the manufacturers and carriers are realizing that it may mean quick bucks for them and that the camera may be fancy-must-have feature for now. But deviating from the phone's primary purpose may put restrictions on its usage and hence bring down the sales in the future.

[brianchris]

Does the law pertain to just cameras embeded in cell phones? What about standrad digital cameras (some are getting quite small these days, and therefore easy to hide)? What about standard film cameras?

I think such a law is ridiculous :roll: , and I hardly use my embeded call phone camera.

[possmann]

Check me if I am wrong but isn't taking photos with ANY camera in voyeristic way already illegal? I mean what is someone was secertly taking pictures of the mens or women's locker room - we already have laws on the books for that - so why do we need another one just for cell phone cameras?

What makes this one different - and if the only answer is a cell phone - how much money did we just waste creating a new, unneeded law?

:roll:

[Ben]

Actually, a federal law is not a bad idea. The proposed fines are quite high, and prison time is an additional deterrence to people who might misuse technology. As I understand the proposal, the law would cover any kind of photograph or video equipment and create a federal crime to supplement state laws. State laws typcially protect people in their own homes from voyeurism, and also occassionally provide what lawyers call "a private cause of action" (which means a victim can recover money if her image is misappropriated), but a federal criminal statute is, IMHO, a good additional protection. Plus, this law would protect people in public places (gyms, department store changing rooms, etc.) who are not in their own home, but still have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

It helps to have a federal law, too, simply because state laws vary so much, and the federal remedy would be more uniform.

[Mike Temporale]

Actually, a federal law is not a bad idea. ...

Wow. It's nice to have legal representation hanging out on the board, eh! Thanks for the synopsis. :D However, I feel a little worse knowing that the existing laws don't cover places like change rooms. 8O

[Ben]

I feel a little worse knowing that the existing laws don't cover places like change rooms. 8O

Well, I don't know anything about the laws in Canada, Mike, so you might be protected up there. :) I have represented a few Canadian companies, but always in their business dealings here in the U.S. I do think some states protect better than others, and some laws against stalking and harassing (and even intentional infliction of emotional distress) might be used by a creative lawyer to protect someone from a picture-taking jerk in a public place. Usually those laws have limited remedies, though, and are difficult to prove. That's why I think the federal law is probably a good idea. Plus the uniformity I referred to above.

At the same time, it is pretty unrealistic to think that federal agents and prosecutors are going to get involved in a small incident with a single photograph. However, if a perpetrator does regularly violate rights, or worse sells or posts pictures on the web, I can imagine the feds might get involved and throw the book at someone. Either way, in my experience the weight of having the law does tend to deter some people, which is a good thing.

[Kris Kumar]

Can't believe our laws are this weak...couldn't believe it when I read the following...

"The state Supreme Court ruled that filming up women's skirts, though "disgusting and reprehensible," wasn't actually against the law."
8O

Glad that someone is trying to fix it.

Thanks Ben for the insight.

[The PocketTV Team]

The text of the law is here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&db_id=cp108&r_n=hr504.108&sel=TOC_14827&

basically it says:

(a) Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

the rest are definitions. e.g:

(3) the term `a private area of the individual' means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual;

(4) the term `female breast' means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; and

so if you film any breast, you should not have problems as long as you stay above the top of the areola :)

of course, if you are working for the secret services, you don't have to worry at all, you are covered! :

(c) This section does not prohibit any lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity.

as you can see, this law is very general and not limited to cellphones. i think they just modified/amended an existing law, and basically added the word "broadcast" as an explicit case of "capture".