Yahoo groups screwed up

[ozgreg]

From what I hear Yahoo has a new policy on groups that post photos, first abuse report and the group goes. It is getting towards the point that Yahoo delete the group first and ask questions later..

Sucks I know but we can thank the DMCA for this, failure to respond to a DMCA take down order is a great way to lose your hosting.

I bet it is Alex worse nightmare material..

[WeLookAtU2]

The reason why these type groups are being terminated is because the high courts of the USA has said that photos taken of people without their knowledge is illegal and and that posting them on the web is a felony.So get ready guys..yahoo isn't the only one's that will be deleting those type sites & photos.I live in Ms and the local law made their 1st arrest this past weekend using that law.I haven't gotten the complete details of it but just from hear-say I gather that the person that took the picture could be facing a long jail time if the charge(s) stick.I never thought it would be illegal to take a photo of someone that is 1/2 dressed,after all doesn't that old saying go "take a picture,it will last longer"? I've also heard that malls and soforth will be posting signs that will state the fact that it is illegal to take such pics on their property.
I will let you guys know more as I find it out.As I'm a true voyuer myself and enjoy looking nip slip pics,and ect.,I think it sucks and will be looking for any loop hole to get around this new law.

[SocialCapital]

Can I get a link to that case you mention? A link to the law? If this is for real, there could be bummer implications for sites like this one. Of course, I don't know where OCC is hosted from.

[thetominator]

Actually, WeLookAtU2 is a bit off target. This is a recent development, and is statutorially-driven. Here are two quick examples: http://www.kypress.com/articles/may-2002/03.asp (Kentucky: "Two other bills, which the governor signed in April, relate to crimes: HB 130 and HB 133. HB 130 was sponsored by Rep. Jimmie Lee and it created a new crime of “video voyeurism.”); http://www.njsba.com/gov_relations/c...eaction=102703 (New Jersey: "This legislation creates a new criminal offense, video voyeurism. It is designed to help shut the electronic blinds on modern peeping toms. It will close a loophole in the state voyeurism law by penalizing those who rely on tiny cameras and other technological tools for sexual spying.")

However, one case from Washington State ruled against a voyeur statute: "In a ruling that could change fashions in Washington state, the supreme court there has ruled that "up-skirt cams" do not violate voyeurism laws.
The Washington Supreme Court judges said that two men who took surreptitious photos and video of women and girls using tiny cameras "engaged in disgusting and reprehensible behavior." However, the judges said they did not infringe on any reasonable expectations of privacy because the images were captured in public places.

"The voyeurism statute, as written, does not prohibit up-skirt photography in a public location," the judges wrote in an opinion issued earlier this month.

"The court said that while people could reasonably expect privacy in places such as a bedroom, bathroom or dressing room, they cannot while working at or visiting a public place such as a shopping mall.

"It is the physical location of the person that is ultimately at issue, not the part of the person's body," the judges wrote."