My only thought is that I can't believe this is something anyone needs to be convinced of:

"...there is a big difference taking a picture of someone on the street and strategically placing a camera between a woman's legs..."

I don't know if this is true, but I've *heard* that camera phones were banned in Japan because the problem is so big there.

Just goes to show how difficult prosecution is in these cases. They had to take the tools away.

I would think the appropriate avenue would be somewhere around the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy." Is it reasonable to expect that you will not be photographed walking down the street? No. Is it reasonable to expect that no one in a public place will be going to extraordinary lengths to photograph a part of your body that is universally considered private? Obviously.

No one can actually say in court "well women walking out in public expect someone to be creeping along next to them trying to get a picture up their skirt, it's just part of society." I'd love to see someone sell that to a jury.

When I was about 8 years old I was shopping with my mother and sister(I believe it was Value City). My mother was wearing a sun dress. I turned towards her and I saw a man quietly leap into a crouch behind her and slide a mirror under her dress. Then he slipped away. The whole thing probably last 3 seconds and I almost thought I had imagined it. I didn't tell my mom and sister until years later and they don't believe me, but it definitely happened.

If that had happened today, at 22, I probably would have 'accidentally' kneed him in the face. Who expected an adult face to be at knee level anyhow? As for legal remedy, I don't think there is a clear cut way to handle it(in my case, he could have argued he dropped the mirror). Hopefully social vigilance will help rebut these people.

Hey, I've been following Feministing for a while and finally decided to comment, because this is an issue that really rankles me.
In my opinion, nonconsensual 'upskirt photography' constitutes a sexual assault akin to voyeurism and stalking- not a physical assault, but an invasion of privacy such that it cannot be justified by the lack of 'reasonable expectation of privacy.' Deliberately taking photos of women's breasts and asses, or a man's package, is not the same as taking a photo of someone's face in our society. When there is clearly a sexual motivation for the taking of a photo, the subject's consent should be required. There's a reason why most of us cover these areas with clothing- in many countries, we consider them to be 'private.' Choosing when and where and to whom we show them is just that, a personal choice- not a choice to be made by a perv with a cellphone camera. If that was acceptable, it would basically mean that anyone could look up a woman's skirt with impunity. At that point, why not let these creeps lift women's skirts to get a better shot? My point is, allowing this to happen makes people public property. It overrides personal autonomy. I don't want someone to take a picture of my crotch, so they shouldn't be able to, period. Wearing a skirt does not suspend my rights. Being in public does not suspend my rights either.
It's a problematic issue, though, because what is and is not sexual can be highly subjective. For example, a person with a foot fetish might snap a photo of someone's foot without their consent. Is this wrong? I think that technically, it is, because this is still sexually objectifying a person without his or her consent. Of course, if you don't consider a photo of your foot to be invasive and don't care that your foot is all over the Internet, then you don't have to file a lawsuit and that's fine, but honestly I think you should be able to. Sexuality is too intricately related to personal autonomy for sexually objectifying photos to be considered okay without consent of the subject.

From the article: John Morris, general counsel for the Center for Democracy & Technology, puts the reality simply: "If you don't want to be photographed walking the street, don't walk down the street -- it's a public street."

So where is that women's only Taxi cab when you need one?

As I discuss over at Polymorphous Perversity, this is analogous to being in a bathroom stall. Sure, someone could stick a camera down low and peep, but do those inches between the door and the floor mean you've surrendered your privacy. No way! Sometimes people have a hard time applying the same rules to new situations - we call that cultural lag. But our social and legal norms should quickly catch up to this phenomenon.

dl, I have not done much reading on this, but it seems to me there have to be some state photographic privacy statutes that either cover this or could easily be amended to cover it. I have in my head that feminists could construct a model statute and then push it as an ordinance or state statute. But I'm not a photographer or a media lawyer, so I have not thought out the permutations.

First off, don't you still have certain rights to privacy in public? Isn't this the reason why, in TV shows that have portions filmed on the street, you'll occasionally see someone's face blurred out? I was under the impression, for some reason, that people filming in public had to get the permission of the people in the shot to have their image used.

If John Morris were hanging around outside a strip club on a night he had told his wife he was staying late at work....AND a film crew came by to shoot a scene where he would be in the background of the shot....he might be singing a different tune about public streets.

But, I'm under the impression that most upskirt photography that men look at on the internet is done by paid models. It would be incredibly difficult to get MASSIVE amounts of actual photos, and so they hire models to dress up in different outfits and...boom. Hundreds of upskirt photos.

So this might not be a pandemic, considering that it seems to be done mostly by paid models. But that doesn't change the fact that it's creepy and that anyone who comes near the bottom of a skirt with a camera phone deserves a swift kick in the face.

This is another topic that I think can be easily summarized as "If you feel you've been violated then you have been."

It is a matter of a reasonable expectation of privacy, as others have said. If someone is walking down the street, then they know people can see them. So while they may not want their picture taken, it's no worse than a frozen version of a passerby seeing them. Conversely, a woman wearing a skirt assumes that no one can see her underthings. We can probably assume she doesn't WANT us to see them. Why? Because she went through all the effort of putting a skirt on over them!

I understand it's hard to prove the photo is you, or tracking down the photographer, etc. But if you can manage this, how hard can it be to prove that this is a total violation?

Who are those guys anyway? "Men against skirts! Women, *please* start wearing pants! And never show us any cleavage."

I saw this happen on the street in nyc! It was so fucked up! And it was so bizarre and extreme that I was frozen and didn't know what to do. A woman was walking really quickly and into a restaurant, seemingly aware that a creepy-ass guy was following her and crouching down to take photos up her skirt. It was actually pretty terrifying - and I saw her run into the arms of a male friend in the restaurant and start crying. I agree that it's sexual harrassment/assualt and it certainly promotes a culture of fear for women, who should feel free to walk down public streets in the middle of the day and any time.

I don't know what the U.S. "unlawful surveillance" law is, but one guy was charged with it after a woman holla'dback when he took an upskirt photo: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26795214/.

Mr. John Morris: So does this mean I can pull up my skirt and waggle my cooter in plain view of everybody as I saunter down to the bus stop each morning? No? I don't see the difference, then. It's either public, where everybody sees it, or it's not. If it's not, it's an invasion of privacy.

"My point is, allowing this to happen makes people public property. It overrides personal autonomy. I don't want someone to take a picture of my crotch, so they shouldn't be able to, period. Wearing a skirt does not suspend my rights. Being in public does not suspend my rights either."

This is the strongest and most direct argument for why I am disgusted by this.

What that woman did in the msnbc story was clever, though most won't realize it's happening in the first place.

I'm one of those girly girls who hardly ever wears pants and I live in fear of this happening to me. I always wear fairly modest underwear (no thongs) because of this. I also have long legs, which probably makes it even easier for them. I should be able to go out in a skirt and walk down a public street without having to worry about some pervert seeing my panties on the web.

If anyone else wants to email Center for Democracy and Technology president and board member Leslie Harris to let her know what you think of CDT representative John Morris's comment, "If you don't want to be photographed walking the street, don't walk down the street -- it's a public street" you can do so at: http://www.cdt.org/about/contact.php. Or you could email Morris directly to tell him that your crotch is not public domain at: jmorris@cdt.org .

"If you don't want to be photographed walking the street, don't walk down the street -- it's a public street."

WHOAAAAAAAAAA THERE. If I wanted perverts to take pictures of my ass and put them on the internet, I would walk down the street with no skirt on at all.

Its also a good reason to wear pants! And turtlenecks!

I hate this-- it's always about blaming women for actions that men choose to do. Women are constantly being told to that "if you get drunk and get raped, it was your own fault for drinking in the first place." What makes no sense though is why we don't educate rapists to learn some decency, self-control, respect and discipline. Just because I find a wallet on the ground doesn't mean I'm going to take all the money out of it...I'll turn it in to lost and found or try to return the wallet to the owner. Similarly, just because a girl is lying unconscious does not mean a passerby has the right to rape or assault her.

?To me there's a big difference between upskirt and downblouse. Taking a picture in a public place of something you can already see (a woman's cleavage) is perhaps rude, but it's both legally protected (street photography generally enjoying legal protection) and not an invasion of her privacy. Taking a photograph up her skirt specifically requires moving the camera to an angle which you cannot see from and hence is a clear invasion of her privacy. It's also not legally protected and in many cases illegal.

But saying things like "I don't want someone to take a picture of my crotch, so they shouldn't be able to, period" is why people sometimes assume that feminist is a synonym for fascist. What if you don't want someone taking pictures of your hair? Does that mean that people aren't allowed to do that either? Does everyone else have to shut off their cameras if you're around? We, as a society decide these things based on what is a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you show something to the whole world, we've decided that it's not reasonable to forbid the world from photographing it. However, we've specifically outlawed forms of surreptitious snooping and photographing. So if you don't want people photographing your hair or your crotch, then all you have to do is to take reasonable measure to cover it. And then, if someone sneaks a camera under your skirt or hajib or into your bedroom or if they wait outside your bedroom window with the hope that you'll leave your curtains open, then they've broken the law.

But you don't need someone's consent to treat them as sexual objects. Whether or not that's wrong (and I would argue that it's not, simply because there's no way that "Excuse me miss, would you mind if I ogle you for a bit?" is ever going to become a normal part of our social discourse), it's a fact. And, at present, it's not generally illegal to use a camera to assist in that. So you can sue someone for photographing your foot when you're out at the beach one day and posting it to a foot fetish web site, but you're going to lose.

Now, you're welcome to argue that our social compact ought to be different than it is. But it's always going to be a compromise. It's never going to say that if you don't want to be photographed then it's wrong to photograph you. If we allowed for that, no store could ever use video surveillance, no one could ever take pictures of crowds, no one could ever take pictures of people breaking the law, and no one could even take a picture of anyone else if there was someone else in the background. And the fact of the matter is no matter how legitimate the purpose of the original photograph is, if it has a pretty woman in it, some guy is going to jerk off to it. That may not make you happy, but that's how things are.

I propose a simple law. If a man is caught violating a woman's privacy for any reason whatsoever, in any circumstance, and violation of privacy being defined as "the woman feels offended, period" than the man in question is strapped naked to a fence in some public area for a day, completely exposed to the elements, and nobody takes responsibility if something happens to him in that time. That would stop these upskirt sites dead, and it'd be nice poetic justice.

Most of the google image results I got were of celebrities. And this gem..

http://www.demotivateus.com/posters/the-upskirt-fun-for-all-ages-demotivational-poster.jpg

You know where your argument fell apart? False equivalence.

Actually, as soon as you used the term fascist incorrectly you lost a good deal of credibility. I don't suppose "KeithIrwin" is an internet pseudonym for Jonah Goldberg, is it?

You can't honestly argue in good faith that you believe a women's hair and genitals are equivalent. I realize it's a useful rhetorical tool to use an analogy to illustrate the absurdity of the original argument, but when you overstep you look like an ass.

As well, your argument is inconsistent. When you state "if someone sneaks a camera under your skirt or hajib ... then they've broken the law." You base this argument on the "reasonable expectation of privacy" which you functionally define as "tak[ing] [a] reasonable measure to cover it."

Yet, you open your reply with "Taking a picture in a public place of something you can already see (a woman's cleavage) is ... both legally protected ... and not an invasion of her privacy." This is where you start to tumble down the stairs. "Upskirting" and "downblousing" are performed by positioning cameras at unnatural angles, attempting to garner an image of more than one could see at a natural angle. Therefore, as long as the woman wasn't unreasonably expecting to not run into an exceptionally short (2 ft) or exceptionally tall (8 ft) man with a camera that day, then she's taken a "reasonable measure to cover it."

In addition, it's useful to apply the seemingly universal "Golden Rule" in this situation. Lets say you were spending a nice relaxing day at the beach with your family and an angry "fascist feminist" took an unnaturally angled picture of your flaccid penis (up your shorts) and posted it on the internet, inviting other "fascist feminists" to enjoy / mock how you fell short in the measure of a man? Think you might feel just a bit invaded?

Cheers,
SPiHC

I think maybe the 'expectation of privacy' should be replaced or amended with 'an expectation of no uninvited attention' or something. There are a fair amount of communities dedicated to 'fetishizing' the photo-stream of one individual. While the (non-erotic) photographs are voluntarily taken and placed on the internet in the first place, the audience views them with erotic intent and I think generally, this is not well-received by the 'admired' individuals. I mean, you can't help if you find someone attractive, but gathering a group of like-minded people to drool over pictures you were never supposed to see is just... icky.

Wearing a high skirt or a low-cut blouse isn't an invitation to rape someone, and I would argue that it's not an invitation to ogle them from 30 feet away either.

I DO have to agree with Keith that saying all people who do this should be humiliated or hurt in retaliation has a sort of Old Testament feel I can't really support. Can't we try educating the perverts before we strap them naked to a post?

I hope my Y chromosome doesn't nullify my opinion.

As a response to people saying its mostly models... in the salon article it mentioned keywords like "candid," "unsuspecting," "accidental," "real," and "rude" all which bring up less posed looking shots (not that we can know what they really are)

The whole "Don't walk out on the street" mentality IS totally victim-blaming and also very regressive. It's insinuating that women who DARE to venture out in public somehow deserve whatever shaming and punishment they recieve, presumably for not being in the home.

If people were going around taking close up shots of men's crotches, I'm sure they wouldn't be so blase.

And to Keith, not wanting someone taking a picture of your crotch is fascist? Please.

Did anyone read Keith's entire comment?

If you stopped at the first sentence of one of his paragraphs, you come off thinking that he thinks upskirt photography is OK. It was poorly phrased. And maybe I'm giving him too much of the benefit of a doubt. Here is the offending sentence:

"...saying things like 'I don't want someone to take a picture of my crotch, so they shouldn't be able to, period' is why some people sometimes assume that feminist is a synonym for fascist"

Note he uses "some people" not a first-person pronoun. He's not saying he thinks it's fascist himself. That benefit of a doubt given, it is a sentence that leads you to believe he's fine with upskirt photography. But if people would READ the rest of the paragraph, it's clear that's not his argument:

"If you show something to the whole world, we've decided that it's not reasonable to forbid the world from photographing it. However, we've specifically outlawed forms of surreptitious snooping and photographing. So if you don't want people photographing your hair or your crotch, then all you have to do is to take reasonable measure to cover it."

He's saying, if we don't want things to be photographed we should cover them up. And he's very clear that he agrees that surreptitious photography should be illegal.

Is that really an argument worth the flaming he's getting on this board?

I'm sorry to be such a stick in the mud about this, but I hate to see people driven away from this board and maybe the feminist community because their comments were misinterpreted and people reacted rashly to them. The feminist movement needs EVERYONE, male and female, in order to succeed. Maybe instead of cursing Keith to the bottoms of the internet hell, we should have read through his argument and responded in a less confrontational way.

"He's saying, if we don't want things to be photographed we should cover them up."

Which is bullshit. I do not grant people the right to do such as take pictures of where I live or work, the cars we drive, myself, or my family, without my permission, or to publicize them. That handful of photos I linked to my profile, which have NO personal identifiers? That's all of myself I'm willing to put out there for people to see. I've been in the news numerous times, and my children have also been photographed for the news. They got our permission each and every time. I also was in a Hollywood movie as a gag. I was paid. I shouldn't be required to put up high walls or hedges (which are unsafe from a security perspective) to keep people from photographing or looking at my house, or covering my kids in hijab to "protect" them from stalkers, perverts or predators.

More should be said about this issue from a simple harassment, stalking or sexual harassment standpoint. Where's the "if it feels like harassment, it's harassment," now? Where's the, "this is not an invitation to look at my crotch" even if I bend over or ride an escalator in a skirt? There are laws against such as this, classifying it as "sexual abuse" "public lewdness" or "unlawful surveillance." "Video voyeurism" including upskirting or downblousing, even in public view, is a felony in a number of jurisdictions, a misdemeanor in others.

"And he's very clear that he agrees that surreptitious photography should be illegal."

Publication or distribution of other people's images, be they group photos of your friends on online social networks, or use in professional works or media, should require at the very least, verbal consent if not signed releases. Perhaps they are merely self conscious. Perhaps they are living in fear of people who have actually stalked them, or avoiding former partners with restraining orders on them who've assaulted them, or completely unbeknownst to you, are living under an alias or protective identity for their own safety.

i love street photography but i detest fetishizations of unwillingness. it sickens me that upskirts serve the latter and bridge the gender divide even more.

i'm not gender's biggest fan. while i know that i can't just ignore it/discount it... i'm not really interested in performing it.

for me feminism is about giving people options to transcend gendered constraints. in my opinion this is best accomplished through education, visibility and amending unfair laws..

i think the feminist response to upskirt photography should include all three, and that here, in this thread, it can begin by education (accomplished by respectful communication). next, maybe we can consider on making Upskirt a more visible issue in the public's conciousness? maybe some provocative (but staged) upskirts of men or of a photo campaign of a woman stepping on a man with a (broken) camera beneath her?

those are just a few of my thoughts.

As a hobby photographer, these people piss me off- it makes it near impossible (as a guy) to candidly photograph anyone without risking ma pretty face (or worse my camera gear).

In Australia, there has been a real push for control over this behaviour, and although "upskirting" is still not illegal, most forms of "covert surveilance" are. Which means if you place a camera, especially a video camera, where it can't be easily seen for the purposes of filming someone without there knowledge, you can be charged.

Funnily enough, the incident that sparked the changed involved pictures of a school boys rowing team ending up on a gay porn site. Must protect our precious private school boys..

I can not believe that some people here, on Feminist-fucking-ing, have to have explained to them the difference between having their foot photographed on the beach and their crotch photographed up their fucking skirt on the street while walking up the stairs w/ their morning coffee.

I live in Hawai'i, and I can't take pictures of my own kid on the weekend w/o someone's foot in the picture, or a plethora of other parts on a beach, but I sure as hell can make it through my morning routine w/o snapping a shot of someone's crotch under their fucking clothing, or their cleavage in the coffee house. There is a big difference there, being that people are willingly wearing that much clothing, be it at the beach or on the public bus. No one puts on a skirt thinking that they might have their crotch photographed today. Shit, I would be more careful about choosing my underwear if this were the case...

There is a reason we are not allowed to just walk around naked on the public streets...not taking pictures of unwitting people under their clothes isn't just a no brainer, but it's the fucking right thing to do. Outlawing this doesn't make anyone sound fascist (even if the word is being used incorrectly here), it makes them sound like a respectful person who is aware that people are autonomous. Other people's bodies are not ours to do w/ as we please.

I don't get what the big deal is. I work hard to have a great body, if it makes a guy's day to see my thong or watch my nipples get hard, does it really hurt me if he snaps a picture? I don't think so. He's not grabbing my ass or forcing himself on me, just getting a cheap thrill. I'm glad he enjoyed the view...