I went to PhoneBin--which I hadn't been aware of--and discovered that at least 97% of the exposed body parts posted there seem to be those of all too willing exposers! I understand that one doesn't have any choice when she's the target of an upskirt photo, and does when she's the exhibitionist. But the problem is more complex--and societal: the internet is has eroded the boundary between public and private. The technology invites transgression.

Overwhelmingly the posters to PhoneBin (and its equivalents) seem to be delighting in the transgressive opportunities; very few seem to be complaining about them.

I am a photographer and shooting images of someone unbeknownest to them in public is not illegal and should not be. But, i do think that upskirting is invading someones personal space and rights and should be illegal.

That being said, a part of the article in which Tracy writes about someone taking pictures of a friends ass and a friend going Kanye on some guy taking pictures of her rack, I do have issues with. While she does not say it, that paragraph implies that this is akin to upskirt shots but, it is not - it is simply what you are wearing for all to see in public.

I find it funny that someone wears something sexy in public and then get mad when it has its intended effect. While I would not take images like this, when you are in public, images can be taken of you LEGALLY and if you go Kayne on someone expect to be charged with assault.

I'd rank it right up there with flashing and if caught perpetrators should be criminally charged. If subsequently convicted of the crime the perp's should be added to any public list of sexual predators that the prevailing law allows for.

This being said I also think that the article should have made a better effort to be informative and as written seems more intent on inciting an emotional reaction in the reader than on providing any meaningful insight into this troubling phenomenon.

Cellphones in Japan have an optional feature to add a sound when a photo is being taken. It is not automatic and has no connection to whether the photo is being taken in an inappropriate manner. The user can turn it on or off as a preference.

Insiduous evil is everywhere! Don't dare walk outside your door! Beware also of sharks, and keep an ice pick on your person at all times.

In other words.

Just relax.

there is no question that snaps of unwilling women under their dresses is an invasion of privacy. Other than that, if its publicly exposed, what is the big deal? i will often take a shot of a beautiful woman to send to a friend, thereby letting him know that while he is toiling in misery, I was able to appreciate a beautiful woman. Other times, i've taken a snap of a hairstyle, blouse, dress, or a pair of boots or shoes just to see if my wife iikes the style.

My dad used to take candid photos of huge rear ends (dressed) while on vacation just to startle my mom and make her laugh when she would get the film developed. Did that make him a vouyer, a masher, or just an old man with a benny hill sense of humor?

most of this reminds me of the heavily pierced and tattooed man i stared at, who shouted "what he hell are you looking at?!"

I went to this web site-- http://www.joesjeans.com/ --almost immediately after reading "Porn in a flash," coincidentally, and found it doubly disturbing in light of the trend Clark-Flory describes. The site advertises jeans using videos made to look like they were taken by a creepy stranger harassing the models. Ick. Why would anyone find this appealing? Why would anyone think this would sell jeans? It's particularly ironic that I went to the site because I read (on http://www.alittlepregnant.com/) that these jeans are flattering to the postpartum body. I was expecting something a little more enlightened.

Bigguns wrote: "Sure, talk tough on Salon if that vents some steam, but don't forget that men kill women every damn day with just their hands and that everyday, crowds of people watch other people die. Starting a public fight doesn't necessarily make it safe.

I have a friend who's a competitive martial arts fighter and I asked her, "So, how would you fare in a street fight?"

"I'd likely get my ass kicked," she said."

Yep. I understand all the women here who urge beating the hell out of any twisted pervert who tries to peak under their skirts. However, that kind of talk is fine for venting, but it's likely to get you seriously hurt or killed if you actually follow through on it.

The perv might be a seasoned streetfighter; while the inner voice of decency inside you makes you hesitate before punching or kicking him, he'll immediately punch you in the throat and then stomp on your head until it cracks. He is used to violence and knows the right moves. He has no anti-violence filter in him, and his nervous system is not wrecked by violence. Normal, decent people tend to blow a mental fuse when faced with violence, even if they're marvels of grace and power in the karate dojo.

The perv might be one slap away from going berserk. This guy is already sick enough to peek up your skirt. If you hit him, you might be hitting a guy who is ready to go postal, whether he knows it or not. He'll tear you apart in a blind rage, and then come to strapped inside a prison hospital bed wondering how he got there.

The perv might be the kind of sick bastard who carries a straight razor or a knife. You try to hurt him, and he slices you up before you even see the blade. First comes the pain, then comes the shock, then you die.

Sorry, all you Dirty Harrys and Harriets. The first rule of self-defense is to avoid violence if at all possible. Fighting is the last resort. Some loser perv peeking up your skirt or calling you names is not physically harming you. You can still get home alive and safe and sound. You do that, and you've won the fight. If you want to yell at him and shame him, go for it, but keep your hands to yourself, because otherwise you're asking to be hurt or killed.

This advice is good for all the tough guys out there, too -- especially the ones in kilts.