Seriously, this is assault - why are the police doing nothing about this? Guys who think this is cool should have it done to their girlfriend,sister,mother..

This could be a new revenue stream for the cops - $1,000 ticket for photographing women's underwear in public. They would be busy parked on street corners ready to pounce.

When your page is titled simply "upskirt photography..." you are going to get people in trouble at work, where many places monitor URLs and page titles. Thanks for making me look like a pervert.

Didn't you just argue that upskirting is just another extension of the world of porn, that has been around since mesopotamia, and which women just need to finally accept. Now it's wrong, but it shouldn't be punished by law, instead we should become a healthier more connected society. That sounds great. I'm all in! But here in reality world where I live, and where new and more twisted ways of sexually exploiting people arrive with every technological advancement, I want it spelled out in plain, undeniable language: this is not allowed. Afterall, if I do manage to break such a pervert's phone or his nose, I have committed a crime, have I not?

Actually - think you are on to something! But instead of subjecting humilation to the daughters, sisters and mothers of the cretinous upskirter - I say bring back pubic humiliation!

Put the asshole in docks in the public square - and make sure he is TOTALLY nude. Maybe even ensure his feet are spread apart so all that dangles will be available for viewing and judging. A couple of hours in front of a busy subway station at rush hour - that should be good enough - it will give the commuters a chuckle as a side benefit.

While I may night have an expectation of privacy when out in public. I do have an expectation of privacy for my underwear.

This has been around for years. Cell phones make a loud sound now when the camera button is pressed, so is a dead giveaway. You have to catch this people fast when they try.

Taking pictures of women in this manner is definitely an invasion of privacy. It is an indignity. How women dress is not the issue. The men who do this are perverted peeping toms. They should be arrested and their web sites should be removed.

After reading the article, I decided to study the evidence at PhoneBin and Flickr. Purely in the interest of research.

Not surprisingy, PhoneBin's "upskirt" files were temporarily disabled, although the site displays hundreds of self-portraits of nude or half-nude women (lots of mirrors!) and many wore obviously taken by someone they know and trust. Some are sad, some funny and a few sort of sexy.

The most exciting pic at Flickr wasn't really upskirt. It showed a group of cheerleaders (football field in background), with one woman's rear revealed by a gust of wind lifting her tiny skirt. It was a sunny day and a photo that made you glad to be a straight male.

Guess "upskirt" is in the eye of the beholder.

Then I realized that a sneak peek up any skirt was pretty interesting to me - WHEN I WAS 13!

After that I moved on. So instead of finding the time to take (and post) 1,455 fuzzy photos of women's body parts, I work, read, watch movies, cook, exercize - and some years ago I figured out how to talk to actual women who have more to offer than a clandestine snapshot.

Try it, you might like it!

I looked (not for long) at phonebin. No sign of upskirt shots in "picture after picture". In fact, I found not a single upskirt pic. Lots of self-made (self-inflicted might be a better term) pictures of people obviously intended for a close friend, but also dogs, trucks, one baby, some not very handsome guys. Mostly just fuzzy pictures of breasts. I had never heard of them before your article. Not that I will bother going back, but you must still have boosted their hit rate for the day.

Similarly very little of that sort of nonsense on Flickr.

get some of that big ol' stuff that moms used to wear in the 50s (hopefully, you can buy it at Sears or somesthing). Comfortable, about as revealing as a pup tent, and just as sexy (not).

Kick them in the balls, crush their cameras underfoot, curse at them, shame them publicly. I'm all for it. Realistically, not everyone is cut out for that kind of response and in many cases it could leave one open to assault charges. As much as I hate the idea of legislating everything, if there is a portion of the population that can't grasp the idea that it isn't okay to take and post photos of people's anatomy that you were never intended to see, there ought to be some legal recourse for those individuals subjected to that kind of invasion of privacy. Any law ought to cover both genders. Just as it is invasive to take upskirt shots, it shouldn't be okay to try to shoot shots up a guy's shorts, or under people's towels in a gym room or under bathroom stalls.

The thing that gets me about this is that it is one of those "little" injustices that can have a negative impact on everyone. I like seeing attractive men and women dressing in clothes they feel are comfortable and attractive. If my husband (or a friend) told me that they weren't going to wear something I found them attractive in or go somewhere (say, the gym) because some creepy person was taking shots of their ass or whatever, that would piss me off.

I suppose women (and men) could protect themselves by wearing ankle-to chin coverings that are largely shapeless (think fundamentalist mormon compound-style), but damn... that would be depressing. Who the hell wants that?

My husband once was at the beach with his daughters around Christmas. There was a man following our 16 year old daughter around with a video camera. My husband asked him to stop, but the guy kept filming her, said it was a free country. My husband eventually took the film by force, the guy complained and the lifeguard that eventually came, backed up my husband (he has a strong personality, I don't think the law was on his side).

My stepdaughter wasn't in a bikini, she was wearing jeans, a sweatshirt & a jacket, it was cold. But you know what, it doesn't matter what she was wearing, it was invasive.

I saw an interview of a person at a nude beach say something similar. He said if was was just sitting in his workclothes eating a sandwich, he wouldn't want some freak with a telephoto lens taking pictures of him, the nudity portion was incidental.

@IaintBacchus, Would we be blinded because you are so white that we would think someone is welding up your kilt? Just wondering.

@Brightstar, Whatever is hidden becomes sexualized, thus in the old days a glimpse of ankle was titillating. Loose fitting pants on women used to be considered risque because they showed the outline of your legs and a skirt hid that. You will just have to deal with the fact that you will be subjected to glimpses of cleavage and thighs and deal with it.