So let's say you are a skirt-wearing person and you would like to ride public transportation in Massachusetts. You would likely think that if someone tried to take an upskirt picture of your lacy underthings or junk swinging free or whatever you have under there, that would be illegal. Haha
They do. The problem is that no legislature has ever defined that as a "place", nor has any court interpreted the law in a way that would make the definition of place in this context to include a location on the human body.
Which is actually what the Commonwealth argued - that the reasonable expectation of privacy as written in the statute meant the location on the body that was photographed, not the location where the photograph was taken. The court disagreed, and pointed out in a footnote that the statute must be read as whole, and section (d) of the same statute exempts merchants who surveil dressing rooms as a means of theft deterrence, thus indicating that the "place and circumstance" in the statute must have been intended to mean a physical location.
I know that place ... and I really do wish there were no cameras.
They do. The problem is that no legislature has ever defined that as a "place", nor has any court interpreted the law in a way that would make the definition of place in this context to include a location on the human body.
Which is actually what the Commonwealth argued - that the reasonable expectation of privacy as written in the statute meant the location on the body that was photographed, not the location where the photograph was taken. The court disagreed, and pointed out in a footnote that the statute must be read as whole, and section (d) of the same statute exempts merchants who surveil dressing rooms as a means of theft deterrence, thus indicating that the "place and circumstance" in the statute must have been intended to mean a physical location.
What about kilts? I am asking for a friend.
Let me guess- All the judges were male, right?
Shark teeth.
You say that like it would be a bad thing.