"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
...
> jaybird wrote:
>
>> I thought you were talking about the equipment where you can actually see
>> people inside the residence. My mistake. You could place a dog outside
>> of a residence for that, but residences have a higher expectation of
>> privacy than a vehicle.... different circumstances.
>
> I was just thinking about this concept of "expectation of privacy" concept
> used by the courts as a factor in various decisions they make. Courts
> often fail to consider common sense when determining one's expectation of
> privacy.
>
> I read an article today that stipulated that taking "upskirt" and "down
> blouse" pictures is not illegal in Washington state. The article stated
> that state courts ruled that it was not an illegal activity because people
> do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy beneath their clothes in
> public places ...

Yeah, I guess you could argue that either way. On one hand, it would be
lewd and outside the normal moral standards of society, and on the other
hand some clothing allows those views from a public place. That's a
difficult call to make.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.