Community Chat

[Noel7]

It's illegal in California.

[momtochloe]

Oh for heavens sake, how is this even an issue?  NO LOOKING UP LADIES SKIRTS PERIOD.  There are no rights on the planet that is makes it acceptable to do so.  This is what more than depresses me about our current court system as this guy should have been tossed.

[Laura14]

Add in the lawyer who actually put it up for appeal and we have the trifecta.  

[SahmIam]

As always, you need to change the LAW which he was charged under. Tort reform is something people have been screaming about for decades.

As one wise person told me:

"There is common sense and there is the law. Rarely do the two meet".

Very true.

[KYToby]

It is not an idiotic ruling.  The law itself is the issue.

The lesson here is for the state legislzture to redo the law, writing it so that this type of behaior is illegal.  Do not attack the court because it cannot change the law based on public opinion.

[QueenDanceALot]

---

@KYToby wrote:

It is not an idiotic ruling.  The law itself is the issue.

The lesson here is for the state legislzture to redo the law, writing it so that this type of behaior is illegal.  Do not attack the court because it cannot change the law based on public opinion.

---

Whatever.  It's an idiotic ruling and an idiotic law.

[Laura14]

I'm with the dissenting judge who said it was "clearly illegal."  Here's the law:

O.C.G.A. 16-11-62 (2010)
16-11-62. Eavesdropping, surveillance, or intercepting communication which invades privacy of another; divulging private message


It shall be unlawful for:

(1) Any person in a clandestine manner intentionally to overhear, transmit, or record or attempt to overhear, transmit, or record the private conversation of another which shall originate in any private place;

(2) Any person, through the use of any device, without the consent of all persons observed, to observe, photograph, or record the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view; provided, however, that it shall not be unlawful:

(A) To use any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons incarcerated in any jail, correctional institution, or any other facility in which persons who are charged with or who have been convicted of the commission of a crime are incarcerated, provided that such equipment shall not be used while the prisoner is discussing his or her case with his or her attorney;

(B) For an owner or occupier of real property to use for security purposes, crime prevention, or crime detection any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons who are on the property or an approach thereto in areas where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy; or

(C) To use for security purposes, crime prevention, or crime detection any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons who are within the curtilage of the residence of the person using such device. A photograph, videotape, or record made in accordance with this subparagraph, or a copy thereof, may be disclosed by such resident to the district attorney or a law enforcement officer and shall be admissible in a judicial proceeding, without the consent of any person observed, photographed, or recorded;

(3) Any person to go on or about the premises of another or any private place, except as otherwise provided by law, for the purpose of invading the privacy of others by eavesdropping upon their conversations or secretly observing their activities;

(4) Any person intentionally and secretly to intercept by the use of any device, instrument, or apparatus the contents of a message sent by telephone, telegraph, letter, or by any other means of private communication;

(5) Any person to divulge to any unauthorized person or authority the content or substance of any private message intercepted lawfully in the manner provided for in Code Section 16-11-65;

(6) Any person to sell, give, or distribute, without legal authority, to any person or entity any photograph, videotape, or record, or copies thereof, of the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view without the consent of all persons observed; or

(7) Any person to commit any other acts of a nature similar to those set out in paragraphs (1) through (6) of this Code section which invade the privacy of another.

[QueenDanceALot]

---

@Laura14 wrote:

I'm with the dissenting judge who said it was "clearly illegal."  Here's the law:

O.C.G.A. 16-11-62 (2010)
16-11-62. Eavesdropping, surveillance, or intercepting communication which invades privacy of another; divulging private message


It shall be unlawful for:

(1) Any person in a clandestine manner intentionally to overhear, transmit, or record or attempt to overhear, transmit, or record the private conversation of another which shall originate in any private place;

(2) Any person, through the use of any device, without the consent of all persons observed, to observe, photograph, or record the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view; provided, however, that it shall not be unlawful:

(A) To use any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons incarcerated in any jail, correctional institution, or any other facility in which persons who are charged with or who have been convicted of the commission of a crime are incarcerated, provided that such equipment shall not be used while the prisoner is discussing his or her case with his or her attorney;

(B) For an owner or occupier of real property to use for security purposes, crime prevention, or crime detection any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons who are on the property or an approach thereto in areas where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy; or

(C) To use for security purposes, crime prevention, or crime detection any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons who are within the curtilage of the residence of the person using such device. A photograph, videotape, or record made in accordance with this subparagraph, or a copy thereof, may be disclosed by such resident to the district attorney or a law enforcement officer and shall be admissible in a judicial proceeding, without the consent of any person observed, photographed, or recorded;

(3) Any person to go on or about the premises of another or any private place, except as otherwise provided by law, for the purpose of invading the privacy of others by eavesdropping upon their conversations or secretly observing their activities;

(4) Any person intentionally and secretly to intercept by the use of any device, instrument, or apparatus the contents of a message sent by telephone, telegraph, letter, or by any other means of private communication;

(5) Any person to divulge to any unauthorized person or authority the content or substance of any private message intercepted lawfully in the manner provided for in Code Section 16-11-65;

(6) Any person to sell, give, or distribute, without legal authority, to any person or entity any photograph, videotape, or record, or copies thereof, of the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view without the consent of all persons observed; or

(7) Any person to commit any other acts of a nature similar to those set out in paragraphs (1) through (6) of this Code section which invade the privacy of another.

---

So a judge agrees with me that it was an idiotic ruling.

KITTY VINDICATION!!!

[JustJazzmom]

It's also a form of sexual harassment.

[SahmIam]

@QueenDanceALot We ALL agree with you the it's idiotic BUT...it's the LAW. Until the LAW changes, it doesn't matter what we or a judge thinks. THAT is the problem today.

And changing them is not an easy task.