Well, isn’t this swell. Here’s an article describing how a local creative creep walks about crowded events with a spy camera in his shoelaces so that he can film the view up women’s dresses. Ewwwwwwww.
I’ll bet. Just disorderly conduct? I remember the first pop-up ads, and they were marketing these little spy cameras. I knew we were in for trouble of this sort back then! Somebody please devise a more severe penalty for this, please.
What about “invasion of privacy?” I hope one of these women ends up being his proctologist when the guy goes in for his colonoscopy. “Just a little hiiiigher!!! Umphh!” “Oh, I’m sorry. Did I forget to use any lubricant?”
Wasn’t this sort of thing on an episode of CSI just last week? The excuse is that it’s so new there aren’t a lot of laws on the books yet. Like stalking before it got media play.
On one of those “wildest police videos” shows on tv, they had a clip of a guy in a department store, dropping things so he could sneak a look. Not satisfied, he (I swear I’m not making this up) went over to the cooking-ware section, got the shiny, reflective cover off a big pot, and dropped that near a woman, so he could angle the reflection up her dress.
When the security guards came and took him away, the woman looked around, saw what was happening – and went back to shopping.
I guess nothing pulls that woman away from her mission.
Well, what was she supposed to do, run screaming from the building?
Personally, I think these guys are kind of pathetic. I can see why any woman would be very annoyed by this, but upset? It’s so ridiculous it hardly merits the energy required to get mad.
There’s creeps like that everywhere. NZ had a similar case a few months back, and there’s talk of clamping down on cellphones in public dressing/changing rooms due to PXT’ing.
And that is one reason I always wear a pair of tight shorts under any dress I wear. (Another is in case wind picks up my skirt!) Anyone taking a peak would be disappointed. They cover more than granny underwear does.
The spy camera guy needs a life. Images of under dresses or skirts seem boring…:rolleyes:
And, really, x-ray glasses are where it’s at these days. 
PXTing?
Personal X-rated Text-messaging.
And again, snatch a peek becomes part of our lexicon.
So, it’s illegal to look at women from certain directions?
And, on a related note, it’s legal for women to be ‘obscene’ in certain directions?
You humans are so strange.
Oh, crap. I’m one, too.
This guy does know that there is a lot of that… oh, what do you call it?.. PORNOGRAPHY on the internet these days, right?
I believe there were court cases that said up-skirt photography (that’s what this sort of stuff is called) is legal, and not an invasion of privacy when it’s done in public. Mainly for the reasons Nangleagator gave. Sorry, don’t have any cites, and don’t want to do a google search on “up-skirt” at work.
In Washington, we recently had to pass a law to make that type of up-skirt photography illegal. There were a couple fellows who got caught, but due to a loophole in the voyeurism laws, they got off (no pun, really 
). I’d venture we’re not the only state unprepared for this new type of voyeurism - hopefully we’ll see more laws like Washington’s soon. (Seattle Times Article)
Sorry about that. The local Vodafone service called a mobile phone based picture message a ‘PXT’. Yeah know, like how a text message is abbreviated to ‘TXT’?
I’ve already given up worrying about this kinda stuff. Too hard to catch, too easy to do. That’s why I made nudity manditory in my NationStates nation.
Of course I’ve got about 90% less demand then those in the female population. But Eugene and Rusty, snap away.
But to play devil’s advocate, doesn’t that belief suggest that the act should not be a crime as there was no victim?