Happy B- Day.

Me too no got,

a panty. I kilts.

O Happy Birthday.

On B- Day, unwrap,

Mr E- Damn, in a burlap.

Funny. It's a third degree.

People are so lovely to me.

I prefer a modest cloth. Oho.

I love if we be shy and take off.

It's like unwrapping a juicer gift.

Creepy to be a sexual pervert tho.

I agree. A unhealthy libido is ugly.

But thee immaterial within arouses.

Respectfully, and I'm no Kara sutra.

I did observe a India Temple. Beautiful.

Would that do it? From dealing with a flasher who crossed my path once, I get the feeling that, no matter what the circumstances, they think seeing their penises turns us on, and they like that, so I doubt that would do it. So, if they just have no shame about their genitalia, then what about just plain unflattering photos, perhaps showing their beer guts or their plumber butts or...is there any sort of picture we could take that would be humiliating enough that would make them get it? Is there anything that can be done to men to make them feel like they've similarly been had?

Just because no one was physically touched, doesn't mean it wasn't a crime. Flashing is a crime. This is like reverse flashing. If the guy stuck his head up a lady's skirt without touching her would that be a crime? The camera is a proxy, but it also adds immortality to the act. The victim can't stop it anymore. It's out there.

It's more than just the facts: guy took picture of girls underwear without her knowledge or permission. Maybe it's just something you can't understand unless you've been violated in some personal way.

By the way, I don't approve subjecting people to photography (that is, making them the subject of your hobby) without their permission, for any purpose. People have a right to some dignity.

~

You gotta love thee diversity of thoughts.

Ya' never find such Beauty in a select club.

I admit, I never view porn sites. I just don't.

`

When we write about topics that touch people deeply...

our language usually falls short. It's best to wear tight pants?

O, never go back to old days of chastity belts. Spare us that.

Is just flat wrong!

There sure is - the homeless guy is sleeping in the only place he has to go - and is recognizable to his family and friends (and himself)- should he be mentally ill and wandering the streets. The upskirt shot - while tacky and stupid and sophmoric, is also - to a large extent - anonymous - no one knows who is represented in an upskirt shot. As a guy who does a lot of street photography (and would never consider an upskirt shot), I've learned a lot about shooting people in public.

There is NO expectation of privacy out on the street - but there IS an expectation of respect. I've managed to rig my gear so I can take a photo of someone without their knowledge - but I've been caught a few times - and people DO get upset - those images I trash. I stay away from homeless people unless i see a particularly good shot - cliched photos of bums is lame and boring. I NEVER look for material that could be deemed erotic - erotic in my book equal consent - not sneakiness...

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."

Actually, a legitimate photographer has a release form and requests use of a person's image.

So does anything go now because the street is public? Assault? Purse snatching? I brought my purse out in public so I shouldn't expect to keep it?

In case I get mugged as I stroll down the block

Not true in a public space. I have a friend at a major newspaper and i asked about that same thing (I shoot a lot of street photography) - and he said - there is NO expectation of priavcy in public...

I wrote:

Really, privacy?

Privacy is not an issue here. Say some guy clandestinely takes a pic up a woman's skirt and posts it on the Internet. Is her privacy invaded? No one knows it's her. Even she doesn't know. How could this possibly have to do with her privacy?

AKA Smith responded:

For instance, privacy laws don't allow cameras in dressing rooms or restrooms because of people's assumptions that these are private places.

AKA, cameras in dressing rooms are different for one reason - the subjects are identifiable. Say I posted detailed information about my friend's private finanancial hardships on my blog, but I didn't identify her. Did I invade her privacy? I did not. But as soon as I say, "BTW, I was talking about Jane Doe in Ithaca, NY," her privacy is gone. The same holds true here. If a guy posts a pic in which a woman can't be identified--even by herself--her privacy is safe. People understand this difference, and it's why you see photoshopped images where faces are purposely blurred. They are blurred, of course, to protect the people's privacy.

So, I'll restate my point, that for you to have a problem with someone posting upskirt pictures, rather than it being a privacy issue, is both prudish and presumptuous. I'm pretty sure many judges have agreed with me, which is why these new laws are being written.

I agree with other writers that posting an identifiable picture of a homeless person is an invasion of her privacy. --I believe much more so than an anonymous up-skirt picture.

cabdriver writes:

I think the commission of the act itself is an invasion of privacy, while it is happening.

I only would find it invasive (and "creepy" is an understatement) if I knew it was happening to me. If someone did this to me, as long as I didn't know about it and never found out, why would I care? How could I care? My discovery is the invasion, not the act itself.