At first I thought the same thing, but then I came to the conclusion that it has something to do with not being allowed to see that particular person’s undies/whatever. I think a good portion of the kick comes not from seeing the view up there (after all, internet porn has made that pretty much unneccessary), but from the rush of doing something they shouldn’t be and seeing something they shouldn’t.
Taking upskirt pictures should at least be a felony with subsequent registration as a sex offender after time is served. It’s an invasion of privacy and should be a criminal sex act. That will require law changes because this type of sex crime wasn’t imagined when criminal codes were first written.
Can it fall under any sort of peeping-Tom law?
You can’t stay away from people who do things anonymously and without your knowledge, you have to be able to identify them to avoid them. I think you need to pass laws to discourage these people.
Apos, I really don’t think this issue could be much simpler than it is. The issue is consent. If I give someone permission to see me naked and they want to do so, ta da, we’re good. If I don’t and they violate my consent (or ignore the matter by doing it in secret), they are committing a serious invasion of my privacy. Claiming that people’s hangups about sexuality are “irrational” is irrelevant. They exist and in such a limited case as this, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with them. Consent is VERY important in sexual matters. The reason these pictures are not okay is the same reason it’s not okay to touch someone’s genitals without their permission or have sex with them without their permission. The physical and mental violation may be lesser in this case, but it’s still a violation. The very way in which these pictures are taken - surreptitiously, with people crouching or angling their phones under park benches and things - makes it clear that the takers of the photographs understand that they do not have permission to take them. It’s obvious that permission to see or touch someone’s genitals needs to be pretty explicit and can’t be inferred just from the fact that you might be able to see them if you go out of your way. And even if you could infer consent to one person in that situation, could you infer that that implies consent to strangers viewing it on the Internet?
Do we really need a court to tell us something as basically common sense as “even in a public place, people have a reasonable expectation of privacy under their clothes?”
Doesn’t seem to, no. There will probably have to be specific laws passed. There are advocacy groups out there for it.
I think that depends on how the law is written and case law in individual states. But INAL.
But if you don’t…
then the rest of us have already lost. 
I think we should treat upskirting the same way we treat cell phone use in movie theators nowadays.
EMP bombs. 
monica: I agree that it’s pretty obvious that some of the attraction of what these people are doing is actually violating someone’s dignity, and indeed I hope I was hinting at that. But as I noted, if that was part of the aspect of what gets these people off, then there is plenty of porn available where that sort of thing is simulated. So what the heck is their deal? And I think that’s telling about what their deal might be: it shows that these people are beyond a simple fantasy, and actually want the reality of making the woman embarrased and or humiliated. It’s the difference between consensual S&M and REAL kidnapping and abuse. Some people get off on the former and I have no problem with it. But some people for some reason get off on the latter. And that’s pretty disturbing.
Maybe. But what laws? How would they work vis a vis a public space?
I agree, but the problem is that these particular things are technically in public view, which raises some tricky legal questions. We face the same issue with cameras that can see through clothing.
In effect, whatl these people are doing are using extrasensory enhancements to collect information that’s basically already “out there” in a public space, just not normally visible to the human eye alone. In the case of the X-ray cameras, the issue is harder: are we going to legislate that people not be allowed to recieve certain wavelengths of radiation?
Well, including and even primarily the hangups of the upskirters. But then, I think you are confusing three tangents I tried to keep separate. I agree that upskirters are doing a scummy thing. I’m not sure if addressing the problem with legislation is as easy as you think. And third, I’m weirded out by the whole phenomenon.
Yeah, we just might need that. But I think it’s a much trickier issue than it seems at first, and I’m not sure that laws against a technology, or laws against viewing, or laws against trading, are the right way to go. Convince me.
Not very different from the reasonable expectation of privacy. You’d apply it to body parts instead of to entire people.
I think the whole “reasonable expectation of privacy” thing is pretty clear, legally. It just has not yet been applied to this kind of behavior.
We’ve got laws about the kinds of searches that are permitted with non-visible radiation, don’t we? How about laws stating that searching or photographing someone with radiation without their consent is illegal when there’s no police investigation?
I’m not sure how else you deal with these creeps; it’s this or a solution that amounts to “wear pants if you don’t want creeps to sneak up to you and shove a cell phone camera up your dress.”
What if you’re a preoperative transsexual?
Oh, don’t worry. I’m sure there’s a website for men who like upskirts of preoperative transsexuals.
The key factor is a reasonable expectation of privacy. The average woman would have no reason to believe that by wearing a skirt, other people will be able to look at her vagina (pantied or otherwise) as a result. So having her vagina remain unseen is a reasonable expectation.
If, on the other hand, a woman decided to drop her pants and flash the crowd during Mardi Gras, she would no longer have a reasonable expectation that her vagina would remain unseen. So while she might be upset if someone in the crowd snapped a picture and posted it on the internet without her permission, she would have no legal recourse.
Who owns your appearance? Are the lightrays public dcmain, such that while you’re standing on the subway platform any visual connoisseur has the right to stare and ogle if he (or she) thinks you look compellingly cute and sexy? Or are such glances and ogles “stolen”, in the social sense that prolonged perusal of your assets is something you license only selected people to be authorized to do, and you have legitimate cause to retaliate, verbally or otherwise, if you catch someone giving you the thrice-over in slow creepy motion?
I tend towards the latter view (no pun intended) but I don’t think it’s something you can legislate.
Yes, but what about staircases or uncrossed legs? What about really short people? There are a lot of situations where between-your-legs can become visible, and we can’t legally stop someone from looking at something exposed. Your panties are exposed from a low-angle to the ground. Whats on the ground is still public, even if you don’t expect there to be people or cameras there.
This just isn’t an easy thing to legislate. As a low-budget filmmaker, I’d hate to see restrictions on what sorts of angles I am allowed to use in public.
I feel it is my duty as a hetero-man to look-up the skirt or down the blouse of a woman, so long as it was an unintentional occurance.
For example: A girl wearning a short skirt or a low cut blouse drops her keys on the ground and I just so happen to be looking at her at the time and consequently catch a nice view. Then all is good.
However, having said that, People who actively go out and try to catch that shit on tape? I don’t know if I’d call them sicko’s but they surely are pathetic.
If they’re already exposed, they would seem to fall outside the realm of a reasonable expectation of privacy.
It’s not, but I don’t see a ban on putting a camera on the ground and angling it 20 degrees. That lacks the conscious intent these jerks have.
!!! That actually sounds plausible, more’s the pity, but still – do you have a cite? Or is this based on personal experience or “everybody knows” rumors?
Stop wearing panties!! 
Wear shorts unner it!!
A brief aside: When the new airport opened here in HK a few years back, they had to completely resurface all the floors because at first they were shiny enough to reflect the view from up women’s skirts.