more on Congress takes firm stand against "video voyeurism!" [priv]

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: L Jean Camp <jean_camp () harvard edu>
Date: September 23, 2004 10:55:49 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
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 interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/