Google fined $2000 for street view clevage shot

[mercuryblues]

21. Apparently

There has to be a law specifically making this illegal. There is no law on the books that say putting a camera between a woman's legs and taking a picture is illegal? Nothing else they could have been charged with?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/05/us/massachusetts-upskirt-photography/

Massachusetts' highest court ruled Wednesday that it is not illegal to secretly photograph underneath a person's clothing -- a practice known as "upskirting" -- prompting one prosecutor to call for a revision of state law.

The high court ruled that the practice did not violate the law because the women who were photographed while riding Boston public transportation were not nude or partially nude.

http://www.salon.com/2008/11/25/upskirting/

On a warm summer day two years ago, a 16-year-old girl put on a skirt and headed to the SuperTarget in her hometown of Tulsa, Okla. As she shopped the air-conditioned aisles, a man
knelt behind her, carefully slid a camera in between her bare legs and snapped a photo of her underwear. Police arrested the 34-year-old man, but the charges were ultimately dropped on the grounds that the girl did not, as required by the state’s Peeping Tom law, have “a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy,” given the public location. In non-legalese: Wear a skirt in public, and you might just get a camera in the crotch.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/10/upskirt-photos-legal-dc_n_5966406.html

In the DC case, the photos were not unfortunate captures. The police noticed he was positioning himself to get these photos. Based on what he said, they obtained a search warrant and found more some of them were of the angle that he did indeed put his camera between a woman's legs for the upskirt photo

But wait, no matter how the law is written, state supreme courts rule it unconstitutional.

http://www.ibtimes.com/texas-upskirt-law-ruled-unconstitutional-anti-creepshot-privacy-statutes-face-legal-1691321

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on Wednesday struck down a part of the state penal code that banned people from taking photos or videos up women’s skirts in public. The state’s highest criminal court, in an 8-1 decision, said the statute violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech by criminalizing photos taken for sexual gratification.

IOW, I like Canada's way better.