[IP] more on Congress takes firm stand against "video voyeurism!" [priv]
Begin forwarded message:
From: L Jean Camp <jean_camp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: September 23, 2004 10:55:49 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] Congress takes firm stand against "video voyeurism!"
[priv]
This law is in fact is a fix for a technological assumption. In the
same way that larceny once require "taking away", laws against voyeur
behavior required physical presence. It does address a legal loophole
based on technological assumptions that were valid for centuries and
have been changed by technical progress. There are not state laws in
all states that prohibit video voyeurs. In most states the action would
be legal if the voyeurs do not profit from the activity and did not
trespass. If you look at some case law and statutes you will find
most "peeping tom" laws prohibit actual physical observation, and if
trespass is not necessary to install the video device then in many
jurisdictions installing hidden video cameras would be legal. Only if
you want to argue that peeking into people's windows should be legal
would your argument be consistent.
Of course, it is true that you could still sue the person. That you can
sue anyone for anything does not mean that there is no need for any law
other than civil law.
This is a privacy - enhancing law. I wish Congress could find some
time to constrain the more egregious privacy violations of errant
corporations as well as errant individuals, but I will not fault them
for doing the second.
regards,
-Jean
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/