How Upskirt Surveillance Videos Can Be Legal

By: Carlton Purvis, Published on Apr 01, 2014

After a man was caught taking upskirt videos of women on a Boston metro route the state supreme court dismissed the case.

In this note, we review the ruling and the potential for this to be an issue in other jurisdictions. The case led to a new state law closing a loophole that allowed the practice.

Background
Michael Robertson was arrested in 2010 for using a cell phone camera to take pictures up women’s dresses on the subway. He was charged, under a peeping tom law, with two counts of photographing an unsuspecting nude or partially nude person. He filed a motion to dismiss the case, but it was denied. He appealed.

In court, his lawyer, Michelle Menken, argued [link no longer available] that if a clothed person’s outfit reveals a body part in public, whether intentional or unintentional, they can’t expect privacy. She said the law protects people from being recorded in private places like changing rooms and bathrooms, but not public places.

She also argued that under the exiting statute the recording had to be secretive to be illegal. She says her client was not and was just photographing what was right in front of him.

The state argued that people have an expectation not to be photographed in that way in that situation and that a person has an expectation of privacy of their private parts in a public area.

Appeals Outcome

Supreme court justices noted five provisions that would have to be met for the upskirt videos to be a crime:

  • The defendant was willingly recording
  • The subject was partially nude
  • The defendant was trying to record secretly
  • The defendant recorded in a place where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy
  • The defendant did so without the other person noticing

The appeals court ultimately upheld Robertson’s motion to dismiss calling the states interpretation of the law “flawed.” The court said act did not satisfy all of the requirements. The victims were not partially nude and were not in a place where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

“At the core of the Commonwealth's argument to the contrary is the proposition that a woman, and in particular a woman riding on a public trolley, has a reasonable expectation of privacy in not having a stranger secretly take photographs up her skirt. The proposition is eminently reasonable, but [the law] in its current form does not address it,” judges said.

Legislation Passed

Lawmakers in March said they were “immediately” working on revising Massachusetts statutes to address changing technology. Last year Senator Katherine Clark introduced a change to the law replacing partially nude to any “human genitals, buttocks, pubic area, or female breast below a point immediately above the tip of the areola, whether naked or covered by undergarments.” The bill in this form would create a law that essentially bans video recording of anyone in public. It didn't move.

It was not until media attention spotlighted the Robertson verdict a usable bill was pushed through.

Two days after the case, the legislature passed the law [link no longer available].

"Under the bill, it would be a misdemeanor to take secret photos and videos of 'the sexual or other intimate parts of a person under or around the person’s clothing.' The law would apply to times when a 'reasonable person' would believe those parts of their body would not be publicly visible," Boston.com [link no longer available] reports.

The penalty is up to up to 30 months in jail and a $10,000 fine.

Other States

Get Notified of Video Surveillance Breaking News
Get Notified of Video Surveillance Breaking News

Some states like New York and North Carolina already specifically ban upskirting, but many state laws have the loophole Massachusetts did, so this legislation is likely to cause other states to review their laws.

For example in California, it's illegal to secretly film "for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn," but only in places where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The same wording can be found in most hidden camera or peeping-tom related laws: The recording has to be secret and has to be in a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

California, however, does have a "revenge porn" law that criminalizes distribution of the videos or photos. Other states are looking to enact similar laws (raising First Amendment concerns).

However, there could be potential problems if states go the route of prohibiting recording of private areas "whether naked or covered by undergarments."

 

Under the bill, it would be a misdemeanor to take secret photos and videos of “the sexual or other intimate parts of a person under or around the person’s clothing.” The law would apply to times when a “reasonable person” would believe those parts of their body would not be publicly visible. - See more at: http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2014/03/06/after-high-court-ruling-upskirting-legislative-leaders-pledge-quick-action/P1bp7k0AnT0UC6X8JsNjnJ/story.html#sthash.rlXuw2nH.dpuf
Under the bill, it would be a misdemeanor to take secret photos and videos of “the sexual or other intimate parts of a person under or around the person’s clothing.” The law would apply to times when a “reasonable person” would believe those parts of their body would not be publicly visible. - See more at: http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2014/03/06/after-high-court-ruling-upskirting-legislative-leaders-pledge-quick-action/P1bp7k0AnT0UC6X8JsNjnJ/story.html#sthash.rlXuw2nH.dpuf
Comments (8) : Members only. Login. or Join.

Related Reports

France Declares School Facial Recognition Illegal Due to GDPR on Oct 31, 2019
France is the latest European country to effectively prohibit facial recognition as a school access control solution, even with the consent of...
UK Facewatch GDPR Compliance Questioned on Aug 27, 2019
Even as the GDPR strictly regulates biometrics, a UK company called Facewatch is selling anti-shoplifter facial recognition systems to hundreds of...
First GDPR Facial Recognition Fine For Sweden School on Aug 22, 2019
A school in Sweden has been fined $20,000 for using facial recognition to keep attendance in what is Sweden's first GDPR fine. Notably, the fine is...
New GDPR Guidelines for Video Surveillance Examined on Jul 18, 2019
The highest-level EU data protection authority has issued a new series of provisional video surveillance guidelines. While GDPR has been in...
First Video Surveillance GDPR Fine In France on Jul 08, 2019
The French government has imposed a sizeable fine on a small business for violating the GDPR after it constantly filmed employees without informing...
Nortek and SDS Fight Over Failed Settlement on Jun 05, 2019
Distributor SDS said they reached a deal with Nortek but Nortek says no settlement was reached and the suit is still on. In this post, based on...
Security / Privacy Journalist Sam Pfeifle Interview on May 24, 2019
Sam Pfeifle is best known as the outspoken former Editor of Security Systems News. After that, he was publications director at the International...
Bank Security Manager Interview on May 15, 2019
Bank security contends with many significant threats - from fraudsters to robbers and more. In this interview, IPVM spoke with bank security...
San Francisco Face Recognition Ban And Surveillance Regulation Details Examined on May 14, 2019
San Francisco passed the legislation 8-1 today. While the face recognition 'ban' has already received significant attention over the past few...
UK Camera Commissioner Calls for Regulating Facial Recognition on Apr 15, 2019
IPVM interviewed Tony Porter, the UK’s surveillance camera commissioner after he recently called for regulations on facial recognition in the...

Most Recent Industry Reports

EyePark Presents Mobile Driver Authentication on Jun 05, 2020
EyePark presented its long-range QR code parking verification platform at the May 2020 IPVM Startups show. A 30-minute video from EyePark...
Bleenco "Under The Tongue" Temperature Detection Examined on Jun 05, 2020
"Say aah", says Bleenco, a PPE detection video analytics company, offering a different method for measuring body temperature with a thermal...
Hikvision and Uniview Entry Level Thermal Handheld Cameras Tested on Jun 05, 2020
While most screening systems cost $10,000 or more, manufacturers such as Hikvision and Uniview have now released handheld models for $1,000 or...
Sequr Presents HID based Cloud Access Control on Jun 04, 2020
Sequr presented HID based Cloud Access Control at the May 2020 IPVM Startups show. Inside this report: A 30-minute video from Sequr...
VergeSense Presents People Tracking Sensor on Jun 04, 2020
VergeSense presented its people tracking sensor and social distancing insights at the May 2020 IPVM Startups show. A 30-minute video from...
FLIR A Series Temperature Screening Cameras Tested on Jun 04, 2020
FLIR is one of the biggest names in thermal and one of the most conservative. While rivals have marketed fever detection, FLIR has stuck to EST...
"Fever Camera" Show On-Demand Watch Now on Jun 03, 2020
IPVM has successfully completed the world's first "Fever Camera" show. Recordings from Both days are posted at the end of this report for on-demand...
Cobalt Robotics Presents Indoor Security and Access Robots on Jun 03, 2020
Cobalt Robotics presented indoor security robots at the May 2020 IPVM Startups show. Inside this report: A 30-minute video from Cobalt...
Dahua Sues Ex-North American President, Says Legal Typo on Jun 03, 2020
Dahua's former North American President Frank Zhang claims he is owed almost $11 million but Dahua counter claims it is just a "scrivener's error",...
Smart Entry Systems Presents Cloud Multi-Tenant Access Control on Jun 02, 2020
Smart Entry Systems presented Cloud Multi-Tenant Access Control at the May 2020 IPVM Startups show. Inside this report: A 30-minute video...