Well, it has been confirmed: GHCQ is indiscriminatly vacuuming webcam footage as well.

Remember when folks said that meta data doesn't bother them, it's not as if they were being spied upon when they're at home, naked? It's not as if they'll mind this time...

Ironically, being naked in front of your webcam might be the way to avoid ending up in their database.

"The documents also chronicle GCHQ's sustained struggle to keep the large store of sexually explicit imagery collected by Optic Nerve away from the eyes of its staff"

Peeping toms and wankers, the lot of 'em. So in order to have a private video chat, just use the chatroulette method and focus the camera on your genitals.

Use these to get to all those caches of cameras and watches those pesky temple monkeys steal from tourists
Cure barking dogs
Peeping-Toms in NYC ditch their hi-rise telescopes for octorotors with advanced imagery GPS powered by GooglARPA, a Division of Raytheon.
Who needs private detectives any longer?

Massive Chunk of Snow Mistakes Fireman for a Peeping Tom

Hmm @braschlosan not quite sure what was on the screen all I can identify is what looks like GPS software and a map. But I have a better question what was the guy in the van doing parked directly in the middle of the alley and outside of his vehicle? Almost looked like a stalker/peeping tom to me. And I could be wrong but from the angle it looked like the guy in the car was parked in his parking spot behind his house. But like @speechless says there is very little context here.

[edit] If you click through to YT it says "Original description stated he started recording the guy because he kicked his car"

It's gonna be the peeping tom's favourite camera when they up the image clarity a bit.

This is a marketing video for just that. You can find the company's poorly-written website if you watch the first few seconds of the unchopped video. I was thinking about the military and peeping tom applications myself, but neither are mentioned there.>> ^Payback:

I'm thinking someone should start using these for Search/Rescue.

>> ^conan:

aren't there laws against filming public space in the US? At least in Germany it would be highly illegal to have a private camera filming anything other than your own private grounds.


Expectation of Privacy is a good rule of thumb. A great big camera and a sign "you are being watched by video" is more than enough in almost all instances. Privacy only comes into play with hidden cameras.

There's a bunch of "peeping tom" scenarios in some parts, where if you are the landlord, you can record video, or audio --but not both-- in any public or PRIVATE area other than bathrooms...

Same goes for peeping toms. >> ^Barseps:

They say that the secret of magic is quite simply to get the audience to look in the WRONG place at the RIGHT moment
^Upvoted^

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Bouncy boobs and a masturbating peeping tom.



This and the OP video is exactly how I envision female slumber parties. Heck, all exclusively female events are like this... at least in my mind.

After watching this clip, I get a better sense of what the top video could be about. While I'm no expert on performance art, by any means, there seems to be themes of domesticity, sexuality, and consumption being explored in both pieces... and how some people keep their expressiveness wrapped up in a house, giving it life only through perverted voyeurism or prepackaged pop music.

Or not... It's interesting to me, anyway.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Bouncy boobs and a masturbating peeping tom.

Bouncy boobs and a masturbating peeping tom.

You sure about that sifty?

>> ^siftbot:

17 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

17 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

I believe this is the guy whose roommates were out of town or had moved out. He was there alone and decided he could go naked since no one else in the house is there to care. The story I read claimed the lady was taking a short cut through the yard (IE not on the sidewalk) and saw him naked.

I just say, if the roles were reversed...lady was in her house making coffee, guy was walking by the house taking his daughter to school. And let's just say he decided he was going to call the cops on her for it...who would be in trouble? My vote is on the guy, calling the cops to report the crime is basically him admitting to being a peeping tom...the only possible redeeming thing is if he had a female child with him instead of a male child....and even then they'd probably charge the guy with corrupting a minor by taking them out peeping.

I believe the lady should absolutely be taken to court over it and let a jury decide if she was innocently looking into people's homes. Her charge cost the guy his job, caused problems with custody on his child, and will probably affect his public image for a long time even though he was eventually found not guilty. Just because this lady decided it was cool to go looking into people's windows. If he was up in the window playing with himself, she wouldn't have stood around and flipped him off...she'd be high tailing it down the street to get away from the sicko. She was just causing problems for the guy, and maybe nudity was just a convenient way to do so.

1. Analogies are not literal. The Salem Witches are an appropriate comparison, because violence was used in the persecution of others. The poster was not suggesting that opening a truck door and burning someone at the stake are equivalent, but they are based on the same principle - that the ends justify the means - if someone is "immoral" per your stance, you have the okay to violently persecute them. Failing to realize this is failing to understand the concept of analogy.

2. Prostitution is a victimless crime. For a crime to have a victim, you must be able to identify a victim in all possible manifestations of that crime. If there is even one counter example, it is a victimless crime. Think to yourself for a moment, can you dream up any possible circumstance wherein one person could pay another for sex, and neither would feel victimized? To help, flip it around - put yourself in the potential-victims shoes - are there any instances in which you would have sex with someone for money, and not feel like a victim? How about $1 trillion to have sex with that one girl at your work, you know who I'm talking about. Would you feel victimized? This is as solid as 2 + 2 = 4, you cannot argue it. If there is a victim in only certain circumstances, it is another, different crime that was committed. Human trafficking is one example used here - another example would be patting someone on the back - legal after a football game, illegal if you are standing on the edge of a cliff. Prostitution is a victimless crime, end of story.

3. Videotaping in a public place is not a crime. The (legal) line was crossed when the "do-gooder" opened the truck without permission of the owner. The fact that he was videotaping them naked, having sex, makes it a sex crime. Voyeurism, peeping-tom-ism, is a sex crime in America - and rightfully so. What he did was equivalent (in principle) to kicking open a bathroom stall and videotaping someone on the toilet. The do-gooder here should justly be charged, and registered as a sex offender.

4. Intolerance is not bad, in fact its very good, its the process by which we define our entire culture. Examples of things we are rightly intolerant of in increasing order of severity: not washing your hands after the bathroom, not covering your mouth when you cough, interrupting others while they are speaking, infidelity, racism, holocaust-denial. Do you go out and burn an racist at the stake? Do you slap people when they don't wash their hands? Do you throw people out windows when they interrupt you? Do you kick open a door and videotape them? Do you beat them with a stick? No...you choose not to be their friend, or associate with them, or ignore their views - just like any other jackass on the street. That is how society and culture are defined. Imagine life without intolerance - where all societal action was open-game and nothing was (nonviolently) condemned. Life would be an unending episode of Jerry Springer.

5. Intolerance as expressed through violence, however, is not okay for the very simple reason that violence is not okay. It has nothing to do with the intolerance motivating it, because as we just realized, intolerance is a good thing. An act of violence always has a victim. Opening a truck door that is not yours is an act of violence, as much as kicking in someones front door. They are different in degree, not kind. Denying the holocaust is not kosher, and you should be very intolerant of such a person, much more so that someone who doesn't wash their hands after going to the bathroom for that matter. But what they are doing is different in degree, not kind. You have every right to nonviolently protest - to videotape them publicly denying the holocaust and put it on youtube, and forward it to their boss. However, you don't have any more right to burn a holocaust denier at the stake than you do to burn someone who doesn't wash their hands. A failure to understand this is a failure to differentiate between concepts of varying degree, and concepts of varying kind.