# What exactly is that new law about cellphone cameras? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 11, 2004, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-that-new-law-about-cellphone-cameras/279228 "2004-12-11T00:11:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-that-new-law-about-cellphone-cameras/279228/1 "2004-12-11T00:11:38Z")
I just heard something in passing, today on the morning news, that there was going to be, or might be, a new law that would make it illegal to use your cell phone camera in certain places. It sounded like if you took a picture of anybody in a bathing suit, it would be illegal because the person’s genitals would be just underneath. Did anyone hear anything about this? What exactly does this law propose to do, and if they’re so concerned with obscenity or invasion of privacy, why do they only mention cell phone cameras? ---
**Author:** ![SmackFu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/53a042/32.png) [@SmackFu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmackFu)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-that-new-law-about-cellphone-cameras/279228/2 "2004-12-11T00:21:45Z")
It’s Senate bill S. 1301 if you want to look it up. (I don’t think a link into their system will work.) The important bit: > [@](#): > > `(a) Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, having the intent to capture an improper image of an individual, knowingly does so and that individual’s naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast is depicted in the improper image under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding such body part or parts, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. That first clause means it only applies on “Federal land such as national parks or Federal buildings” so it’s kind of a symbolic thing. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-that-new-law-about-cellphone-cameras/279228/3 "2004-12-11T00:29:10Z")
> [@SmackFu](#): > > It’s Senate bill S. 1301 if you want to look it up. (I don’t think a link into their system will work.) The important bit:That first clause means it only applies on “Federal land such as national parks or Federal buildings” so it’s kind of a symbolic thing. It could be a problem at NP’s, if someone decides it should include bathing suits too. I love the concept of ‘knowingly taking an improper picture’. Seems to me there’s some room for interpretation there. My country, I’m so proud. ---
**Author:** ![bashere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/779978/32.png) [@bashere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bashere)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-that-new-law-about-cellphone-cameras/279228/4 "2004-12-11T00:49:50Z")
> [@Spectre of Pithecanthropus](#): > > It could be a problem at NP’s, if someone decides it should include bathing suits too. Note the “reasonable expectation of privacy” provision. While IANAL, it would surprise me to no end if one had a reasonable expectation of privacy when e.g. on a beach. This law says, in effect, just because its a small camera and people don’t expect it to be there and don’t expect you to give up your phone doesn’t mean you get to supply upskirt with new material. ---
**Author:** ![Omphaloskeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bcef8e/32.png) [@Omphaloskeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omphaloskeptic)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-that-new-law-about-cellphone-cameras/279228/5 "2004-12-11T00:54:47Z")
> [@Spectre of Pithecanthropus](#): > > It could be a problem at NP’s, if someone decides it should include bathing suits too. I love the concept of ‘knowingly taking an improper picture’. Seems to me there’s some room for interpretation there. > > My country, I’m so proud. Um, did you miss this part? > [@](#): > > (a) Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, having the intent to capture an improper image of an individual, knowingly does so and that individual’s naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast is depicted in the improper image **under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy** regarding such body part or parts, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. I don’t think you have reasonable expectation of privacy on a public beach. And, in fact, the “improper image,” along with several others, is defined in (b) of the bill. And, no, cellphone cameras are not mentioned specifically; perhaps you’re confusing the bill with [this proposal](http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20041114.html). ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-that-new-law-about-cellphone-cameras/279228/6 "2004-12-11T02:32:33Z")
I disagree. On a beach, I DO have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to images of my private parts. That’s why I wear a suit of some sort. Privacy as to my whole body, no. Privacy as to those parts which are under cloth which can be seen through by a typical slightly hyper-spectral CCD camera, yes. As I read it, a surreptitious picture snapped of a person in a swimsuit isn’t prohibited. But one which serves to expose their parts, now that’s prohibited. And yes, overall I agree the law’s largely symbolic & mostly meaningless. When everyone is carrying a camera most of the time, most of us will get photographed several times a day, as either subject or background. And it’ll become part of the social expectation. And once the novelty has worn off, it’ll be no big deal. ---
**Author:** ![spingears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@spingears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spingears)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-that-new-law-about-cellphone-cameras/279228/7 "2004-12-11T02:36:50Z")
The local health club has notices posted prohibiting use of cell phones of any kind in both mens’ and womens’ locker rooms. For their protection in case of misuse.