Is it a crime?

[Clashfan]

A recent incident on the public transportation system where I live has sparked a rather large debate. A woman on the subway bent over to pick up her bags. A man across from her took the opportunity to snap a photo of her breasts, which become partially viewable when she bent over. She in turn took a photo of him and notified the transit police when she got off.

Is this a crime or not?

[Weeaboo]

It's a crime.

He did not get her consent to take a photo.

[el_flel]

It's voyeurism which is an offence here in the UK, so here it would be a crime. Even if it wasn't that is absolutely disgusting.

[supersimoholic]

Yeah, perv deserves a slap.
I wouldn't want someone taking pictures of my cleavage.
Even if she was wearing a low cut top, it's not an invitation to snap away...

[Oaktree]

It would be illegal in certain US states, in which the courts say you can't film or take a picture of someone without their consent, but I don't know the laws in the UK on that matter. As el_flel has pointed out, it is still voyeurism.

[Clashfan]

Certainly the guys a perv but I don't see the crime. First there is no such thing as needing consent to take someone's photo in a public place. If there were then celebrities would have a much easier time pressing charges against the paparazzi.

He did not speak or touch her in anyway so it's not harassment. What the police are going on is invasion of privacy. However this was a public subway and therefore by law there is no expectation of privacy.

I simply don't see what they could charge him with as voyeurism is not a specific crime in the US. It would fall under invasion of privacy which is what a peeping Tom would be charged with.

No doubt the woman feels violated, I know I would, and the top in question was not low cut it was simply loose and fell open in front when she bent over. Still I think that if they end up arresting this guy he will have grounds for suing for false arrest.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

methinks the line is crossed at the picture part.

yes. it is a crime to take a picture of someone who did not want to be photographed ( in general even ) with their intimates exposed.

mind you so much damage to a person can be done with only a picture.

[TRIriana]

Certainly the guys a perv but I don't see the crime. First there is no such thing as needing consent to take someone's photo in a public place. If there were then celebrities would have a much easier time pressing charges against the paparazzi.

Celebrities would be a special case, as when they put themselves in the public eye they know to expect paparazzi will take photographs of them. There have been celebrity cases however, of papers being sued for taking explicit "crotch shots", which are not okay.


He did not speak or touch her in anyway so it's not harassment. What the police are going on is invasion of privacy. However this was a public subway and therefore by law there is no expectation of privacy.

There's always an expectation of privacy and personal space, regardless of where you are.


I simply don't see what they could charge him with as voyeurism is not a specific crime in the US. It would fall under invasion of privacy which is what a peeping Tom would be charged with.

A peeping tom could be arrested for a scenario such as this: peers through window with the express purpose of viewing naked/partially naked person. This person spotted a woman bending over, noticed that her top had opened and that he could view her breasts. He then focused a camera to take a shot of the woman's breasts, and would - we can assume - have kept the photograph. This is just as bad, and just as valid to arrest someone for invasion of privacy.


No doubt the woman feels violated, I know I would, and the top in question was not low cut it was simply loose and fell open in front when she bent over. Still I think that if they end up arresting this guy he will have grounds for suing for false arrest.

I doubt very much he has grounds for suing, although that of course is just my opinion. I bolded one segment of the quote for one reason - I don't think it needs to be stated anywhere what type of top the woman was wearing. Whether it was high-cut or low-cut, that still does not give someone the right to take advantage of someone's position, so that they might take an intimate picture.

[Honeywell]

Not a crime, I'd say. I see news reports on obesity in the U.S. almost weekly that show people in public with their stomachs hanging out and ass cracks showing that just have a little black bar covering the peoples eyes. Obviously, those people didn't consent to that so I guess I fail to see the difference here. Now if he does something with the photo than maybe she has grounds for a civil suit but I don't see anything criminal in taking a picture of someone in a public place.

exhibit a:
http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/

[Oaktree]

Honeywell: That sort of thing is illegal in Maryland, and I have heard that there are some other states that have similar laws. The wiretap law has been used by the court system to prosecute people who take video and, I believe, photos of others without consent. Of course, a double standard is applied (security cameras are still used, but if you get video of a cop, you better hope you've got a phenomenal lawyer) and I don't think there should be such a law in the first place. When you're in public, people can see you and you can accidentally get caught in photographs and videos. Public places, by definition, allow for little privacy. Now, if someone comes onto your property to take pictures of you, that is entirely wrong and a violation of privacy because you can expect to be afforded privacy on your own property. I'm getting a little off-topic though, so back on the topic of voyeurism.

While it is a creepy thing to take a picture of someone like that, I looked up the legal definition of voyeurism and this is actually not included. Voyeurism, by law, is when a person can reasonably expect privacy, such as in a restroom or changing stall, but there is hidden surveillance installed. Here is where I found the definition: http://definitions.uslegal.com/v/voyeurism/. So I guess the perv will get off scot-free.

[Clashfan]

There's always an expectation of privacy and personal space, regardless of where you are.
I bolded one segment of the quote for one reason - I don't think it needs to be stated anywhere what type of top the woman was wearing. Whether it was high-cut or low-cut, that still does not give someone the right to take advantage of someone's position, so that they might take an intimate picture.

This is not true in US law if you are in public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. You can even be on your own property and depending on vantage points you still have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Meaning if someone can see you out of the window from the street they could still take a photo of you and not invade your rights.

Had she been in a public restroom or changing room those are covered as having a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The only privacy law that covers clothing specifically deals with the "up the skirt" issue. Meaning if he had taken a photo up her skirt then that would violate her expectation of privacy.

As for the needing consent to take a photo not in public you don't.

I agree with you on the subject of what type of shirt she had on. I was viewing this more as a statement of the individuals personality as to how violated she may feel.

I'm am not condoning this behavior at all I just don't see how they can press charges against him with the way the law is written.

[el_flel]

The only privacy law that covers clothing specifically deals with the "up the skirt" issue. Meaning if he had taken a photo up her skirt then that would violate her expectation of privacy.I was going to say that the ambiguous part of the law is that which states voyeurism is observing a person in a private act without their consent, for their own sexual gratification; would the courts accept that innocently bending over in public be classed as a private act? But if upskirt photos are illegal then why not one taken down her top? I don't see the difference.

[kywawa]

amazing..thanks for sharing..

[Doddibot]

Honeywell: That sort of thing is illegal in Maryland, and I have heard that there are some other states that have similar laws. The wiretap law has been used by the court system to prosecute people who take video and, I believe, photos of others without consent. Of course, a double standard is applied (security cameras are still used, but if you get video of a cop, you better hope you've got a phenomenal lawyer) and I don't think there should be such a law in the first place. When you're in public, people can see you and you can accidentally get caught in photographs and videos. Public places, by definition, allow for little privacy. Now, if someone comes onto your property to take pictures of you, that is entirely wrong and a violation of privacy because you can expect to be afforded privacy on your own property. I'm getting a little off-topic though, so back on the topic of voyeurism.

While it is a creepy thing to take a picture of someone like that, I looked up the legal definition of voyeurism and this is actually not included. Voyeurism, by law, is when a person can reasonably expect privacy, such as in a restroom or changing stall, but there is hidden surveillance installed. Here is where I found the definition: http://definitions.uslegal.com/v/voyeurism/. So I guess the perv will get off scot-free.

I was going to say the same thing (well, something very much like it).

[omgrawr213]

Although you could say that the woman was at fault for wearing clothing that didn't completely cover her breasts in all positions, it's still wrong to take a picture of someone without having permission from the person.

[Vanito]

If someone rips ouf of their clothes for whatever reason, its it ok to make pictures? Problem is in this type of situation, common sense would say nope, but some people need rules because their common sense says something else.

[HystericalParoxysm]

I'd imagine if this sort of thing was illegal, you wouldn't see all these young female celebrities' crotch shots as they get out of a limo drunk, or be allowed to display pictures of their nipple slipping out of their top, or a shirt being see-through under the wrong lighting. I gotta say, I agree with Clashfan and the reasonable expectation of privacy. You expect to have privacy up your skirt. Not so much just whatever's happening otherwise on the bus.

Dickish, yes, but I'm not sure just being a dick should be illegal.

[Mistermook]

Not a crime. Perverted and wrong? Sure. Not a crime though... The acid test, in my mind, would be "would this be a crime if it were merely in the background of another photo?" Say I was taking a picture of Vanito and behind them there was a woman with a wardrobe malfunction occurring, would I be committing a crime? The woman had no expectation of privacy. The expectation is that she'd keep her clothes on. The woman did not give consent for the photo, but that's usually an issue for publication, not simply taking the photo. If taking the photo without consent was the crime, then she committed it too by taking a picture of him.

Bottom line: Keep your tits in check on subways.

[TRIriana]

Not a crime. Perverted and wrong? Sure. Not a crime though... The acid test, in my mind, would be "would this be a crime if it were merely in the background of another photo?" Say I was taking a picture of Vanito and behind them there was a woman with a wardrobe malfunction occurring, would I be committing a crime? The woman had no expectation of privacy. The expectation is that she'd keep her clothes on. The woman did not give consent for the photo, but that's usually an issue for publication, not simply taking the photo. If taking the photo without consent was the crime, then she committed it too by taking a picture of him.

Bottom line: Keep your tits in check on subways.


I would argue that the difference in intent in that scenario. There's a big difference between accidentally catching someone with a wardrobe malfunction, in the background of a photograph of something innocent; and purposefully thrusting a camera in front of someone's breast to take a pervy shot of a woman's cleavage.

[Marcos_Edson]

I would argue that the difference in intent in that scenario. There's a big difference between accidentally catching someone with a wardrobe malfunction, in the background of a photograph of something innocent; and purposefully thrusting a camera in front of someone's breast to take a pervy shot of a woman's cleavage.

Indeed. The second scenario seems to be the case here; even if it´s not a crime as some argue, it´s not also something that should be simply ignored as it might open space for abuse.

[Mistermook]

I would argue that the difference in intent in that scenario. There's a big difference between accidentally catching someone with a wardrobe malfunction, in the background of a photograph of something innocent; and purposefully thrusting a camera in front of someone's breast to take a pervy shot of a woman's cleavage.
Is there a criminal charge for "taking a picture with intent to catch someone revealing their breasts in public" though? How do you prove intent in that case, unless there's a pattern of behavior where you can go "See! This guy is always riding the subway, and women reveal their boobs on the subway, and he takes pictures of them!!!" Maybe he could have wrote an email before hand: "Hey, I'm riding the subway tomorrow, and when some woman shows off her sweater puppies to me in public I'm totally going to take pictures of them." Otherwise he can just fall back on, "Your honor, I never imagined that some woman would put her breasts on display in public like that where anyone could see them. I was just taking a picture of life on the subway and imagine my chagrin when I discovered there were boobs in my picture. Verily, I was mortified."

Well, maybe without the verily, but you get the picture. The woman shouldn't be waving her social security number and address around in public either, where any bonehead can take pictures of them. The woman can control whether or not the man has the right to publish the picture, for now, by not pressing the issue enough that she becomes a public figure and suddenly people get to snap pictures of you in the interests of the public. She can sue the hell out of him if they end up on the internet, for instance, because I think there's probably a good civil case there for harm. But criminal? No way.

[TRIriana]

By that argument, you can't then prove intent for anything. "Your honour, I was just stretching and that man walked into my fist!" The point of the courts, is to prove intent. The report makes it sound as though the guy stepped directly in front of her, and took a close-uppicture of her cleavage. If he had been set far back, and the camera was on zoom then you may be able to argue that the guy was innocently taking photogrpahs. But that doesn't appear to be the case here. The very fact that she noticed suggests a close proximity and he was blatant about it; making intent a little easier to prove.

Even in your social security example, whilst the woman is an idiot, if the man takes her details and then uses them, it would be a crime. A more apt example, considering the breast scenario, would have been the woman's information accidentally slips out of her purse onto the floor, and the man takes pictures of them for nefarious purposes.

[Mistermook]

That still doesn't answer the fundamental questions though:

Does anyone have an expectation of privacy aboard subway or other public transportation when exposing their breasts?

Is there a criminal statute relevant to "taking a picture without consent in public that reveals someone's breasts?"

Even in your counter example, of the woman's private information accidentally slipping out onto the floor, the breech of privacy resulted from the woman first revealing that privacy barrier, whether by accident or intent. "For nefarious purposes" is after the fact, the simple act of taking the picture itself seems to fall under the category of a non-crime that could make a crime possible. If someone drops their keys in public, for instance, and I pick them up and put them in my pocket while I look for them in a crowd is it reasonable to charge me with theft of those keys? Burglary? Home invasion? I haven't committed the harm for which a crime is contingent upon yet.

The man may or may not have intended to cause harm or violate some criminal statute where a woman's breasts are shown somewhere and it's a felony or something, but again, I don't think there's really a case for that. Civil suit? Sure, though there's plenty of wiggle room in there for "prove that the photographer is causing you harm by having a picture of your boobs in his private collection" I think.

As far as I can tell the only person who actually violated a criminal code might be the woman - she's the one who apparently revealed her breasts in public. Public nudity ordinances aren't universal, and she'd of course be waived through because the only person she apparently flashed her tits to was someone who apparently didn't mind, but they exist in a lot of places. Anyways, if there was a crime, as a lot of you have been suggesting, it was a crime only because she made it possible. A malicious boob-wielder could send a lot of people to prison simply by wearing loose clothing in windy weather and filing charges every time she popped into a picture with her goodies on display, even if she was in other public spaces where photography was more or less inevitable. "Look at me! I'm in the background of your news report with my boobs out! You're all going to jail!"

Whether you're displaying your boobs in public, dropping your wallet with all of your money and personal information on the ground, or leaving your keys on the metro, you're usually the person who's expected to maintain the boundaries of your privacy while you're in public. Crimes can still occur, and yes intent can come into circumstantial cases like this, but it boils down to harm and process. If the man had simply been looking and had her breasts burned into his memory forever? Not a crime. Taking a picture that happens to have her public boobs in them? Not a crime. Putting the picture of her public boobs on the internet without her consent? Crime. Putting his camera up her skirt to take pictures of her panties? Crime. Taking a picture of her social security card? Not a crime. Using the picture of her social security card to facilitate fraud to get a credit card to buy hand lotion? Crime. Not realizing that her public boobs were also minor boobs? Child pornography. Someone proving that the photographer guy seems to have an awful lot of "public" boobs in his collection at home? Maybe a crime, because it shows intent, whether or not there's any actual crime involved - sort of like if the guy had a lot of suspicious photos of strange kids playing at the local playgrounds. That's creepy enough that it might warrant an investigation, but it doesn't prove a crime.

[Lemon&Lime]

Taking a photograph of someone's image without consent is a crime. This is why people broadcasting have to gain written consent from each person they film (I myself have been on national British television for comic relief and the BBC made me sign something first), or the opposite - where they are told they are on film and have the option of being blurred out after the filming has taken place (e.g. crowd shots).

Just because you see images of celebrities half naked or whatever doesn't mean it's legal. Has anyone on this thread considored that they wanted those images to be seen? If a celebrity walks out in front of a group of paparazzi deliberately it's called implied consent. Not only that, but there ARE such things as celebrities/normal people being able to sue newspapers etc for reproducing their image without permission.

Recently in the press, a polish (haha, the irony!) family posed for a photo for a stock photo company. Their image was then used in a campaign leaflet for the British National Party (facist, racist party, generally hated by most of the population) and they successfully threatened them with legal action, and I think won an out-of-court settlement.

[Mistermook]

That may or may not be the case in the UK. I'm not familiar with UK law. In the US there's generally no expectation of privacy and no consent required when in public.

Here's a relevant post from a US lawyer specializing in intellectual property (http://www.quora.com/Why-is-photographing-someone-without-her-consent-legal-but-recording-her-voice-illegal-in-many-states-in-the-U-S):

2. Photography of Persons without Consent

Photographing someone in a public place without her consent is permissible if the photographer did not trespass on private land, touch the person, or otherwise unduly harass or threaten the subject while taking the photo. This policy reflects to some extent the "plain view" doctrine governing searches under the Sixth Amendment, as well as important protections for the First Amendment privileges of news-gathering and free speech.

The limitations on photographing a person in public would likely depend on whether any laws were broken in obtaining the photograph. Thus, if the photograph was enabled by breaking and entering another's property, by fraud or false pretenses, involved impermissible touching (battery), or instilled an apprehension of touching (assault), the act of photography would be illegal. If there is a particular pattern of stalking, annoyance or physical proximity, the subject could apply for and get a restraining order, as the late Jacqueline Onassis did with one particular paparazzo.

In addition, there would be limitations on commercial use of a person's photograph that had been taken without consent. Many states (such as California and New York) have laws that generally make it a civil violation or a misdemeanor to misappropriate another person's name or likeness for the purpose of selling goods or services without their consent. These "rights of publicity" formerly were recognized primarily for "famous" people, but the literal terms of the New York statute, for instance, make such use a misdemeanor regardless of the person's notoriety.

As photo sharing becomes a more popular component of for-profit online social communities, the extent to which rights of publicity or "name and likeness" rights will be protected for ordinary, non-consenting citizens will likely need to be clarified with additional case law or legislation.

[crocobaura]

Bah, if you wear enough cleavage guys are going to stare into it anyways whether you're standing up or bending down to pick up your luggage. I mean it's calling for attention and while it's annoying to see someone actually jump up to the occasion and take a picture of her, there are plenty of people snapping pictures of other people for various reasons, be it cleavage or too much pink hair on an elderly lady. In my country at least, you can take pictures of other people in public settings, like topless girls at the beach, they even show them on TV but then again, we're not exactly champions at respecting people's privacy.

[Mistermook]

It's hard to champion respecting people's privacy in public while at the same time respecting the freedom of the press, people's rights to take pictures of themselves, and basically not become a police state. If everyone were committing a crime when taking a picture at a crowded mall without previously gathering up everyone at that mall and gaining express written consent, or if they were committing a crime when they took that picture and some woman in the back bent over exposing themselves at the last moment, then the practical result would be no one taking any pictures except in a studio setting. Want to take a picture of a politician? Nope, not without a written letter. Someone's arrested? Write about it, but don't use their name, because that's probably a crime. "Some guy killed some woman today somewhere. Reporting from our office, someone says that the man has been arrested."

Half of Facebook? Full of felons in this world where it's a crime to take a picture in public without consent.

[TRIriana]

If someone drops their keys in public, for instance, and I pick them up and put them in my pocket while I look for them in a crowd is it reasonable to charge me with theft of those keys? Burglary? Home invasion? I haven't committed the harm for which a crime is contingent upon yet.

Whilst it would be silly to charge you, if the intention was to hand them over to the rightful owner, the moment those keys are picked up by someone other than their owner and pocketed, it is theft. It's why when something like house keys are dropped, they should be handed in to the relevent authorities immediately if the owner cannot be located.

As far as I can tell the only person who actually violated a criminal code might be the woman - she's the one who apparently revealed her breasts in public.

She wasn't exposing or revealing herself, her top came undone acidentally - there's a big difference between the two.


As far as I can tell the only person who actually violated a criminal code might be the woman - she's the one who apparently revealed her breasts in public. Public nudity ordinances aren't universal, and she'd of course be waived through because the only person she apparently flashed her tits to was someone who apparently didn't mind, but they exist in a lot of places. Anyways, if there was a crime, as a lot of you have been suggesting, it was a crime only because she made it possible. A malicious boob-wielder could send a lot of people to prison simply by wearing loose clothing in windy weather and filing charges every time she popped into a picture with her goodies on display, even if she was in other public spaces where photography was more or less inevitable. "Look at me! I'm in the background of your news report with my boobs out! You're all going to jail!"

I'm not going to get into it here, because it isn't that type of debate; but that's getting disturbingly close to: "She deserve to be raped, she made it possible by not wearing underwear!"

Putting his camera up her skirt to take pictures of her panties? Crime.

And why should it be a crime to take pictures of someone's underwear without her consent, and not to take a picture of someone's naked breasts without her consent?


2. Photography of Persons without Consent

Photographing someone in a public place without her consent is permissible if the photographer did not trespass on private land, touch the person, or otherwise unduly harass or threaten the subject while taking the photo. This policy reflects to some extent the "plain view" doctrine governing searches under the Sixth Amendment, as well as important protections for the First Amendment privileges of news-gathering and free speech.

I'm not sure how it is defined in the US, but here invading her personal space to take such a photograph would be harrassment, if they did not give consent.

In the US there's generally no expectation of privacy and no consent required when in public.

You have freedom of speech, but not expectation of privacy?

Someone's arrested? Write about it, but don't use their name, because that's probably a crime. "Some guy killed some woman today somewhere. Reporting from our office, someone says that the man has been arrested."

Just to clairify that point, in the UK at least, it IS a crime to release a suspects name before they are charged.

[el_flel]

I certainly think you can expect a certain degree of privacy in public. People wear clothes to cover up parts of their body that they don't want to reveal, therefore if a person is trying to take photos of the parts which are covered up than that is a violation of their privacy. "Up-skirt" shots have already been mentioned, I don't see why this case should be any different just because it's breasts.

[Mistermook]

Obviously the laws in the UK are vastly different than in the US on this subject. Perhaps we could get a heads up from the OP telling us where this happened, because it apparently makes a huge amount of difference in the "Is it wrong and illegal, or just wrong" question.

[Lemon&Lime]

Half of Facebook? Full of felons in this world where it's a crime to take a picture in public without consent.

Facebook will take a photo down if it is a photo of yourself taken without permission. They won't take it down just because it's unflattering, but if you are asking the poster to remove it and they are refusing, they will remove it for you.

[Mistermook]

Facebook takes down photos because it's publishing photos. As has been explained, in the US there are varying state laws regarding how you control the publication of your likeness, so I imagine it's a case of "We can't police by individual states, therefore we're going to err on the side of caution."