Voyeurism is Allowed Public Spaces?

In Washington state, there has been several news articles about men who have elaborate camera set ups using shoes and iPhones, to look up women's dresses. The most recently publicized case involves Jenifer DeMarre who was at the Seattle Home Show in Feb of 2012 with her husband when a man tried to film up her skirt. DeMarre's husband caught the man and the voyeur was quickly arrested. However, it is taken almost a month for DeMarre to get an anti-harassment order against this man.  Why? 

The story I have been following was written by Denise Whitaker for Komo news in Seattle. Now, I follow Komo on Facebook and I was a bit horrified to read on comment thread one man who wrote:

shes blowing this up so much omg

Unfortunately, the questionable comment above is not a rare opinion regarding these types of events, and other events like. What's the big deal? After all, she was wearing a skirt, right? Easy access. She's basically asking for it.

The idea privacy is changing drastically in our society. Social networks, Facebook, GPS and digital surveillance have all come together to redefine what is often called the public sphere. Some of the problems regarding this redefinition the murky, gray waters of what can be considered public access as compared to what is considered private acts. And this includes issues of voyeurism, and fashion.

Shoe Cameras

In a way, DeMarre was lucky that the incident occurred in a private Facility rather than a public space. Indeed, as I wrote on Facebook when replying to this news story, if this act of voyeurism had occurred in a public space, DeMarre might not have gotten any legal help whatsoever, because wearing a skirt in public doesn't give you a reasonable expectation to privacy.

How do I know this?   First, it is clearly written in the Washington state voyeurism law; the laws pasted towards the end of this post.  But more importantly, I saw this happen myself during Seattle SLUT walk 2011.


For those who do not know, SLUT Walk is an activist movement comprised of people who have been sexually assaulted and raped, and then blamed for that assault because of what he or she was wearing - this is slut-shaming and victim blaming.   I was taking part in the protest, when a man was seen taking photographs of women's underwear, and up women's skirts.  Keep in mind, this was a group of women, and men, most of who had been raped and/or sexually assaulted in their lifetime. Regardless, this man was repeatedly reported to the police who happened to be present at the protest. What did the police do? Nothing. They asked him to stop doing it, but they did not run him off, they did not arrest him, they only offered a firm word and then let him loose, to start filming all over again.


Many of the women were horrified and, rightfully so, angry. The question was this: why on earth did the police not arrest him from voyeurism? Well, because none of us at that protest had reasonable expectation of privacy. We were in a public location, Westlake Square, and having a public protest. As a result, our public space did not allow us to have private expectations.


The irony is this: we now have laws that allow a form of "slut-shaming" for women evening wearing the most tasteful of dress or skirt. It doesn't matter if the woman is wearing fishnet stockings and a miniskirt,  or if she is wearing a full-length skirt that covers all the way down to the ankles–if she is out in public, any guy with the camera on his foot can likely get away with filming her, and there will be little that she can do about.  Even though a skirt that covers a person's intimate areas, and legs, suggests a desire for privacy, just being in a public place can counteract that gesture.


 I write about this today only to make people aware of the conflict in law, social mores, and everyday life. One of the women who wrote on the Facebook post by Komo said: this is one of the reasons I never wear a skirt in public. It is terribly sad that we live in a world that suggests that people deserve to be taken advantage of just because of the close they wear.  Just fodder to think about.

Washington State:RCW 9A.44.115 Voyeurism.

(1) As used in this section:

     (a) "Intimate areas" means any portion of a person's body or undergarments that is covered by clothing and intended to be protected from public view;

     (b) "Photographs" or "films" means the making of a photograph, motion picture film, videotape, digital image, or any other recording or transmission of the image of a person;

     (c) "Place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy" means:

     (i) A place where a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that his or her undressing was being photographed or filmed by another; or

     (ii) A place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance;

     (d) "Surveillance" means secret observation of the activities of another person for the purpose of spying upon and invading the privacy of the person;

     (e) "Views" means the intentional looking upon of another person for more than a brief period of time, in other than a casual or cursory manner, with the unaided eye or with a device designed or intended to improve visual acuity.

     (2) A person commits the crime of voyeurism if, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, he or she knowingly views, photographs, or films:

     (a) Another person without that person's knowledge and consent while the person being viewed, photographed, or filmed is in a place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy; or

     (b) The intimate areas of another person without that person's knowledge and consent and under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether in a public or private place.
 Read the full law here.


What do you think about the changing reality of pubic vs private spaces?  What do you think about slut blaming?

A Highway to Me

I wanted to write a quick blog post about the problem of search engines and advertisers targeting ads, and search result information specifically to each of our individual needs. I wrote about this in an earlier post about Google's privacy policies, policies that went into effect yesterday.

Anyway, this morning I woke up to a friend complaining about Facebook's algorithm regarding the posts we see on our news feeds. Now, people complain about Facebook.  It's like breathing; you're not alive unless you're taking a little bit of time out of your day to bitch about Facebook changes. Facebook could change one color, on one letter, which would show up on one place on your Facebook wall, and somebody would complain about. But I honestly feel the complaint I read today is valid: 

Ok so what I really want to know is... Why Facebook needs to prioritize my wall based on it's perceived notion of what I want to see. I've got my sort set to "Most Recent," and STILL the first post is from an hour ago and the second is from 9 minutes ago. Thinking about boycotting FB altogether.

Google's New Privacy Policy and Wider Concerns

I spent the morning reading Google's new privacy policy, which becomes active on March 1, 2012.  After reading the policy and also reading other views on the policy, such as Lifehacker.com articles, I have come to a few conclusions!

Information Control

Yes the policy on how much information they gather from you is scary, but not any more than any other company that gathers info from you, including Microsoft, Yahoo, and so on.  So what is the difference?

•  Google is a huge company with lots of services, and so information is centralized.  

• This privacy policy is written in plain old, easy to understand English, and so for the first time you may be understanding how much information is actually being collected from you.  Also, maybe for the first time and because the policy is readable and relatively short, you can read it.
• "Wishy-washy" words make some aspects of the privacy policy less then reassuring.   As Lifehacker points out: "Subjective terms like "good faith" and "reasonable" aside, a plain-talk easy-to-read privacy policy seems like a good model for all information-collecting webapps to follow."

Question:  Have you read all those other policies you have agreed to in the past?  Not likely. I often  joke about it: "Well, there I go giving up another child to Apple," I say as I imagine Apple's new policy updates to be a lot like Rumpelstiltskin - offering tempting items at a horrible price.  Although educated, I also do not understand what I am reading with many of these agreements.  So, did I really agree to the agreement I agreed to?  I am not sure.  Is it legally binding if I did not understand what I signed?  +sigh+  But I digress.

So we have three particularly important issues: A) information with Google services is now centralized, meaning they can connect the dots about you more easily.  Big is scary and the bigger one gets, and the more power one has, the more scary that entity becomes.  Power corrupts and Google's hope to "do no evil," is less likely.  B) Likely for the first time, you are able to read the privacy rights you are giving up.  These are not new surrenders, but readable rights of privacy, which is scary.  It is easier to ignore what we cannot understand. Plain English makes it super clear

C) "Wishy-washy" language leaves us all on uncertain grounds as to what constitutes reasonable attempts to keep information private and accurate.  With that said, what really worries me, and it is something that Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft all do, is how that information will be processed. I will quote from the new private policy for this one:

"We also use this information to offer you tailored content – like giving you more relevant search results and ads."

• Worry number four: Google will be narrowly targeting our likes, dislikes, and interests.  Again, Google is not unique on this, but given the centralized mode of information collection, they are the most efficient at this.

On the outside, this seems good.  When I search for something, Google will look at all the collective information it has about me, and return specific results tailored to my preferences.  How awesome is that?  It is like having a conversation with a very close friend who knows you SO well, that he or she can fill in all the blanks to a silent conversation.  It is also cool that Google can help me coordinate and organize events using this information, let me know the closest pizza joint, and so on.  I like that.

But I also think this sucks. Sucks in a giant way.  I go to the Internet for information .... diverse and complex information. For me, the Internet = the most awesome complex research organism in existence! Now, sometimes I want direct results, such as directions to a Pizza place, but more often I am looking up ideas, news, and concepts.  I am exploring information and if I am given only a narrow sliver about that topic or news, I become a narrow person.  I may be liberal, but getting only liberally targeted links to news, blogs, and articles will help to create a limited and non-critically thinking being.  

But Google is NOT the only company to do this.  Look at Facebook and the type of messages and wall posts you see on your FB wall.  It is not targeted to provide you with information only about SOME of your friends - they ones FB thinks you like and enjoy the most.  Amazon has been doing this for years, and sending us all emails on what it thinks we should buy from them. Seriously, THIS IS WHAT YOU SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT. We are creating a world where each one of us will live in a bubble of information that divorces us from the complex world of critical and chaotic thought.  It is almost enough to make one walk away from it all and simply use the world of libraries. 

Yes, the information gathered on us, and how our world in relation to what constitutes privacy is changing .... has changed drastically.  Be worried about this.  Be conscious about this.  Be careful about what you put out there on the Interwebs. But a larger concern lies in how that information is being used and processed.  Do you really want Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Amazon, Microsoft and the rest to become YOUR personal gatekeeper regarding information and news?  Telling you what information you should be reading, and holding back the rest? This is what we are surrendering to, and I think it should concern us all a great deal.

______________

UPDATE 2/27/2012: 

For those of you interested in deleting your  web browsing history on Google before their new privacy policy takes place, John Thomas Didymus at Digital Journal offered this great advice:

1. Go to the google homepage and sign into your account.

2. Click the dropdown menu next to your name in the upper-right hand corner of your screen. 

3. Click accounts settings 

4. Find the "Services section" 

5. Under "Services" there is a sub-section that reads "View, enable, disable web history." Click the link next to it that reads: "Go to Web History." 

6. Click on "Remove all Web History" When you click on "Remove all Web History," a message appears that says " Web History is Paused." What this means is that while Google will continue gathering and storing information about your web history it will make all data anonymous, that is, Google will not associate your Web History information with your online accounts and will therefore be unable to send you customized search results.

Links to examine:

Google's New Privacy Policy

This Lifehacker post explains the policy.

This lifehacker post brings up good points about lazy language, which is why lawyers normally use legal babble and not everyday language

Chapter One: Under Where? Underwear!

As promised, here is a short excerpt from my memoir that examines one woman's journey discovering and understanding her sexuality, her role as a woman, and herself.  In Chapter One, I talk about how we are often introduced to the idea of sexuality with a simple question: Where do Babies Come From? 

On Facebook I read a status update that my nephew was told by a friend of his that babies come from the great baby cloud. Since cloud computing is getting so very popular, I could not help but imagine Google being behind this operation, talk about Google+, with Apple on its heels for iTunes downloads. Picture this, baby souls stored in “the cloud,” being pumped with information from the Internet - twitter feeding the virtual soul fetus along with Facebook wall updates, and targeted advertisements.  Advertisers would be in heaven! Consider the potential of training a child to be a consumer even before he or she popped out of the womb!  Capital delight!

I also examine the sad truth that for many women, including many in my family, the first introduction to sex is rape:

Writing this memory down, I sit and wonder what my Mother must have felt or thought with my imitation of her eye drawings: for I now know this was her first memory, and the eye was what she focused on as she was being raped. She was a very young child when it first happened. This sexual abuse would follow her throughout her childhood, adolescence, and into the throws of young adulthood. Much of it stopped at thirteen or fourteen when she pulled a gun on her attacker, her Stepfather, and hitchhiked out of Fairbanks, Alaska, taking the Alcan highway. Maybe she viewed the single eye as not only a physical example of her attacker, but as the all-seeing Ra, a universal god.

Do the myths we tell our children about sex and sexuality eventually lead to larger misconceptions, such as the myth that women deserve to be raped, that it is the only thing that can control her? Or, rather, is this slippery slope argument without steam and substance?


Writing the Diaphragm Blues looks to the comic moments of sexuality, to the more serious consequences of sex and violence - all though the eyes of one woman, her experiences, and her efforts to better understand herself and her place in the world.

New Underwear Followers

Dear Reader,

Well true to form, after mentioning the following words on my post (prostitution, underwear, sex and procreation), I received a few interesting new Twitter followers, including 1 sex worker, a book promoter-promoting a"Where do Babies Come From" book and, this was interesting in the end, a company called PantyO.

Sex Industry Workers

Generally, Twitter sex industry workers are rather easy to detect becuase the avatars of these Tweets are of young, sexy, women who either suck on their fingers, a piece of fruit or are seen sitting with their legs wide apart. I highly doubt that any of this images are of the actual Twitterer, but you have to love their Tweets:

I just met a new girl and we are gonna hang out, wanna cum?

Oh Brother!  Again, each to their own, but these folks are NOT bothering to read my tweets, or my bio. Rather, all they are doing is targeting me with the use of searches.  As Pooh Bear states: oh bother.

But I did get two unexpected new followers that should be mentioned generally: What looks to be an interesting read on where babies come from and a company selling Panties.

Where do Babies Come From?

One new follower was advertising the book Birds, Bees, Babies by J.L. Sweat. Regarding the book, the author writes:

The birds and the bees.  Birds, Bees, Babies is a book that takes a “Santa Claus” or nonbiological approach to teaching children about the birds and the bees.  When a child asks the age old question, where do babies come from, this book can help provide a healthy and positive solution to having the birds and bees talk.  The book follows a little girl who has been taunted by a friend because she does not know where babies come from.  Her father tells her the story of the birds and the bees and that babies are created because the birds and the bees make a baby and then it is delivered by the stork.  This unique and exciting story is intended to present a non-sexual approach to the explanation of where children come from.

This book takes the opposition direction that my mom finally took when giving me low-down on procreation,  and it leaves me to wonder: what story is the better story to tell on this topic: the mythological non-biological explanation or the biological one?  What do you think (leave comments below!)

Underwear!

The other new follower from my post was a company called PantyO, and they make a Kegel exercise undergarment selling for over $50 dollars (ouch!). If you wish to investigate, here is an article that discusses the Kegel Exercises from the Mayo-Clinic. These female undergarments are designed to help strengthen the pelvic floor mussels, which assist in childbirth, urination (avoiding incontinence) and, of course, sexual enjoyment.   

At first I was a bit wigged out on this follow.  I thought to myself:

Great, vibrating panties are following me! 

But this was not the case; after doing a bit of research, I can see how this product could be helpful not simply for someone hoping to enhance sexual pleasure, but, importantly, for those experiencing incontinence.

I have cared for several older and sick men and women in my life and I can tell you, if they could have avoided the problem of incontinence, they would have. But the panties made by PantyO should really come in more styles, rather than the bikini cut version, including styles preferred by an older crowd.  If you are targeting to fight incontinence, then you need to market to those people as well.

Where do Babies Come From:

I am still interested in hearing the story you were given about where babies come from, why now leave a comment here!

R

Happiness