video voyeurs

I have read today that a law is being passed in the state of California to illegalise secretly photographing under women’s skirts.

Two examples given in the news story.

1: Man puts camera in shopping bag, stands near women in malls and theme parks and holds bag under their dresses.

2: Man sets up cameras behind portable toilets.

Now reading these I just have to ask one question:


I mean how sad must one be to go to such trouble. I’m completely baffled.

Bíonn caora dhubh ar an tréad is gile (there is a black sheep even in the whitest flock).

People will do some dumba$$ things to make some cash and/or to satiate a fetish.

Man sets up cameras behind portable toilets? That’s the one I don’t get. Behind them? To get what, farts on tape? That is weird! Just strap a tape recorder to your ass after chili for lunch and you’ll get all the farts you can stand… probably some you can’t!

The moon looks on many flowers, the flowers on but one moon.

You must have scored pretty high on the Purity Test.

Saw something on MSNBC yesterday about an internet site called “Voyeurdorm.” There’s six or so girls living in a house, and there’s cameras everywhere, you know the whole routine. It’s in Florida, but I can’t remember the city. They’ve been told to cease & desist, because under that city’s ordinances, they are for “adult use,” even though it’s just the girls living there. It’s not a house of prostitution, no one comes in & gives the girls money for anything sexual in nature. It’s just their daily lives on camera. Sure, sometimes they’re naked, and they do chat with the people that log on to see this. The thing is, the house is in a residential area. It’s an ordinary house. There’s nothing anywhere on the outside that identifies this place as “voyerdorm” or anything other than just a house. The city has told them that they can do whatever they want…in the area of town designated for “adult use” activities. They are fighting the decision. What do you think about this one?

As for the picture-taking thing in California, well, I agree with that decision. I wouldn’t want my butt, clothed or not, displayed anywhere without my permission.

In a similar vein, Sony now makes a night-vision camcorder. It’s been discovered that if you use it during the day with a certain filter, you can get images of people’s bodies through their clothes. How’s that for invasion of privacy?

I’m not a warlock. I’m a witch with a Y chromosome.

Voyeurdorm huh, well if they’re making money off the website then I would have to say it is a business and therefore would have to follow zoning laws but if they’re not making money off the site then I don’t see any reason why they can’t stay where they are.

My dear witch with a “Y” chromosome: Do you really believe that thing about the Sony camcorder? Gee, I can see through people’s clothing when there’s the right ilumination and they are wearing the “right” type of clothing, and all I need is my Serengeti sunglasses! Am I invading their privacy? Or are they allowing me into it?

Men will cease to commit atrocities only when they cease to believe absurdities.

Yes, Voyeurdorm does make money, because like any of the peep cams & porn sites, you do have to subscribe. That’s the city’s argument. They’ve told the people that run this thing that if they move into the area of town where all the rest of the adult business is, they can do whatever they want, as long as it’s legal. The city is NOT trying to shut them down completely…they’re just telling them to move out of the residential area. It’s kind of hard to argue with that.

Member posted 08-28-1999 03:25 PM

 Actually, it's pretty easy. Ever heard of the first amendment?

  As for the OP. I think that most of the attraction is getting away with it. I mean, it probably would be easier and cheaper to rent some porno tapes, but what's the challenge in that? It's sort of like people that would rather rape somone than go to a prostitute, although voyeurism is certainly not on the same level as rape.

" ‘Ideas on Earth were badges of friendship or enmity. Their content did not matter.’ " -Kurt Vonnegut, * Breakfast of Champions * sells the lens needed to get it to work. As I recall, it was pretty well documented when it was first discovered.

“I guess it is possible for one person to make a difference, although most of the time they probably shouldn’t.”

The Sony camcorder thing definitely works. I have one of them, and tried it on some cloth after I got it.

When you switch on Sony’s ‘Nightshot’ mode, it removes the IR filter from in front of the CCD, allowing it to pick up infrared light. Some materials are more transmissive to infrared than they are to visible light, and therefore you can see through them, somewhat.

My wife put on a black bathing suit and I tried it, and sure enough, it looked basically like she was wearing a translucent suit with nightshot on.

Still, you might want to be wary if you see a guy with a camcorder randomly videotaping people at the beach.