Looks to mom under her skirt. Another guy lifted his skirt and gym in panties
The revolution that digital technologies made, having come into our lives thirty years ago, did not end (relatively speaking) with the advent of the Pentium. It continues - and every year new inconsistencies, inconsistencies, bottlenecks in culture, traditions, and law emerge that are not adapted to new ones - digital! - realities.
Often such inconsistencies are serious and give rise to long heated debates, such as the problem of the inability to control digital copying (remember Salinger's dilemma). But there are seemingly little things that are not even possible to discuss normally. Yes, they clearly demonstrate how technology is ahead of the law, but touch on such a topic at least in passing - and you are guaranteed at least a condescending smile from your audience. And discuss this on television, in the press ?! Well, you know! An example of such a "little thing" is the upskirt phenomenon.
I see, I see, the one who is in the subject smiled :-). To be honest, this thing is very popular in certain circles. If by some miracle you do not know what it is about, then everything is simple: the word "upskirt" is translated from English as "peeping under the skirt" and is used to refer to both the action itself and the resulting photographs or videos. Its history is rich and stretches far beyond the digital age. Here is Marilyn dancing over the well, and frivolous canvases of medieval painters, and much more.
In the context of our conversation, two points are important. First, there has always been a tangible element of eroticism in upskirt. Secondly, from the point of view of society, it has always been fun on the verge of permissible, something in between a game that is permissible for adults and generally recognized deviations like spying on someone taking a bath. The sexual revolution that took place in the second half of the 20th century (you know, "mini" and all that) even made upskirt a fashion element. But hardly anyone could have imagined that at the beginning of the 21st century, thanks to digital technology, peeping under a skirt will turn from fun into a headache.
Annoyed by the English term? I confess that I myself am not delighted with him. And while I was preparing the material, I almost broke my head, thinking how best to translate it into Russian, I consulted with a linguist. Ideally, you need the same catchy, short, self-explanatory word. But even in the Russian-language section of "Wikipedia" there is no article on this topic (I will add a column and get busy - join in!), So for lack of a better I decided to use the direct transliterated version: upskirt. Not everyone will like it, but we are no stranger to the tablet and Satoshi ;-).
Again, something else is more important. Upskirt in its modern sense is the child of camera phones and smartphones. The emergence of supercompact digital cameras, and even crossed with mobile phone, has become a kind of trait: such cameras are invisible, do not arouse suspicion and make the distribution of footage as easy as possible. As a result, peeking under the skirt has degenerated into a criminal business and unpleasant antisocial activity. Today upskirt is one of the most popular categories on pornographic resources: there are providers of such content that produce a continuous stream of photos and videos from streets, shopping centers, beaches, and there are consumers who are ready to pay for it. There are also plenty of “amateurs” who share the results of their “works” on the Web - and also put casual oncoming people in an uncomfortable position. I suppose few girls dream of seeing themselves on YouTube, captured from below. And the question is whether we can counter the invasion of privacy from this side.
For us citizens Russian Federation, oddly enough, it is easier than many others: covert shooting in any form is outlawed in our country (correct if something has changed). But the rest of the democratic world, interspersed with swearing with laughter, is forced to look for more precise and subtle formulations.
The Americans are in a particularly tight spot now. In the States, another scandal is thundering (it is hoped that this one will be the last), connected just with upskirt. The background is simple and already typical: in 2010, in the Boston subway, a man was seen trying to shoot on the phone - naturally, without permission or knowledge - of fellow travelers from below, with an emphasis on the hips and crotch (sorry, so in court documents). The police organized live bait fishing, sending the disguised employees to ride, the peasant pecked - and he was tied (Michael Robertson, 31). Soon the first trial took place, finding the man guilty. It is not surprising: after all, peeping - that is, (I quote) deliberately filming the intimate areas of a partially or completely nude person without her consent at a time when the person suggests privacy - is illegal in the United States. But that was just the beginning of the story, the first iteration, if you will.
In the photo from the police station, Robertson is an ordinary middle-aged white guy. We do not know whether he was, as they say, a pervert or a cyber activist, who by his example wanted to point out the discrepancy between the legal system and the actual state of affairs - well, all the same, like the ever-memorable Aaron Schwartz. But one way or another, Robertson really helped! He appealed and just won the case!
How did he manage? The highest court of the state where the hearings were held (Massachusetts) considered that, being in a public place, a citizen has no right to hope for privacy, and besides, he cannot even be considered partially naked: he is dressed! The subway car is not a bathroom, not a changing room, and a smartphone is not a hidden camera. And in general, if a citizen flaunts parts of his body (intentionally or not), what kind of expectation of privacy can we talk about? Therefore, although peeping in the classical sense is still prohibited, this prohibition does not apply to upskirt.
After such a verdict, natural hysteria broke out in the media. Everyone laughs: some hiding behind, some openly, laughing lawyers, passers-by, TV presenters and the press. Are they laughing and making salty jokes like, did Robertson's lawyer wear panties when she was broadcasting about "the constitutional right of her client to take upskirt pictures in public places"? And at the same time, everyone understands that it will not work to laugh at the problem, and some, through tears of laughter, already demand the revision of the law, which is so far behind technology. But the trouble is, it is not clear what the final wording should be.
One of the options: though over your clothes a person in a public place cannot expect privacy, under clothes he still expects her, and the invasion there should be prohibited. The definition is casuistic and not without flaws, but this is the salt: numbers and civilization has stepped on another corn - and how to get rid of the pain, no one knows!
Naturally, the hapless inhabitants of Boston are not the only ones who have faced this. Other American states suffer from the same "hole" in the law and have already acquitted citizens caught on upskirt. But America, everyone is doing their best. Japan does not prohibit covert filming, but restricts the distribution of materials obtained in this way. Shaky. The UK looks at the problem rather with a grin, which is why celebrities especially suffer - whom the paparazzi do not have yet to shove the lens between their legs. Nothing good either. India and Singapore are stupidly imprisoning upskirt lovers. Rough: what if an accident?
In short, you cannot prohibit, ignore it more dear to yourself, discuss both scary and ridiculous. Such is the inconvenient moment. One thing pleases: instead of boring faces that adorn materials about other collisions of numbers s and society, there are beautiful legs. Enjoy while you can! 🙂
Petersburg student and model Anna Dovgalyuk recorded a video manifesto against the "upskerters". According to her, men often look under the skirts of girls on public transport, thereby committing a sexual offense. To draw attention to the problem, the girl in the video herself demonstrates to passers-by her charms under the dress.
According to Dovgalyuk, in less than a year in St. Petersburg, activists received more than 350 complaints from victims of such peeping, which is called upskurting and is "an element of large-scale disrespect for women."
The perverts, as indicated in the video, not only look under their skirts, but also take pictures on the phone, and the records, in which the faces of the victims are visible, are posted on the Internet.
To draw attention to this problem, a girl who studies at the Faculty of Law and calls herself a public activist, decided to "win back" on those who like to look under their skirts. Armed with a camera, Anna and her friends went down to the St. Petersburg metro. In the video, an activist in a short red dress lifts the hem whenever passengers start getting off the carriages. The footage changes every second - Anna's black panties were seen by passengers from several stations at once.
The video ends with a call to "legally recognize upscaling as a crime against the person."
The video, which has already collected more than a million views on YouTube in a few days, caused a mixed reaction. In the comments to the video, some users expressed bewilderment with such a manifesto. Most of the commentators did not appreciate the act of Dovgalyuk.
“Sheer nonsense, 350 complaints. And the girl showed her sirloin to thousands. And what was it supposed to give to people from outside? Will the anti-rapist manifesto be in the form of porn? " - commentators are perplexed.
State Duma deputy Vitaly Milonov also spoke on Facebook about a single action by a female lawyer, calling her an "idiot."
The network found out that the activist is no stranger to getting naked. On Instagram, the girl willingly shares pictures in swimsuits and underwear.
The revolution that digital technologies made, having come into our lives thirty years ago, did not end (relatively speaking) with the advent of the Pentium. It continues - and every year new inconsistencies, inconsistencies, bottlenecks in culture, traditions, and law emerge that are not adapted to new ones - digital! - realities.
Often such inconsistencies are serious and give rise to long heated debates, such as the problem of the inability to control digital copying (remember Salinger's dilemma). But there are seemingly little things that are not even possible to discuss normally. Yes, they clearly demonstrate how technology is ahead of the law, but touch on such a topic at least in passing - and you are guaranteed at least a condescending smile from your audience. And discuss this on television, in the press ?! Well, you know! An example of such a "little thing" is the upskirt phenomenon.
I see, I see, the one who is in the subject smiled :-). To be honest, this thing is very popular in certain circles. If by some miracle you do not know what it is about, then everything is simple: the word "upskirt" is translated from English as "peeping under the skirt" and is used to refer to both the action itself and the resulting photographs or videos. Its history is rich and stretches far beyond the digital age. Here is Marilyn dancing over the well, and frivolous canvases of medieval painters, and much more.
In the context of our conversation, two points are important. First, there has always been a tangible element of eroticism in upskirt. Secondly, from the point of view of society, it has always been fun on the verge of permissible, something in between a game that is permissible for adults and generally recognized deviations like spying on someone taking a bath. The sexual revolution that took place in the second half of the 20th century (you know, "mini" and all that) even made upskirt a fashion element. But hardly anyone could have imagined that at the beginning of the 21st century, thanks to digital technology, peeping under a skirt will turn from fun into a headache.
Annoyed by the English term? I confess that I myself am not delighted with him. And while I was preparing the material, I almost broke my head, thinking how best to translate it into Russian, I consulted with a linguist. Ideally, you need the same catchy, short, self-explanatory word. But even in the Russian-language section of "Wikipedia" there is no article on this topic (I will add a column and get busy - join in!), So for lack of a better I decided to use the direct transliterated version: upskirt. Not everyone will like it, but we are no stranger to the tablet and Satoshi ;-).
Again, something else is more important. Upskirt in its modern sense is the child of camera phones and smartphones. The emergence of super-compact digital cameras, and even crossed with a mobile phone, has become a kind of feature: such cameras are invisible, do not arouse suspicion and make the distribution of footage as easy as possible. As a result, peeking under the skirt has degenerated into a criminal business and unpleasant antisocial activity. Today upskirt is one of the most popular categories on pornographic resources: there are providers of such content that produce a continuous stream of photos and videos from streets, shopping centers, beaches, and there are consumers who are ready to pay for it. There are also a lot of “amateurs” sharing the results of their “works” on the Web - and also putting random oncoming people in an uncomfortable position. I suppose very few girls dream of seeing themselves on YouTube, captured from below. And the question is whether we can counter the invasion of privacy from this side.
For us, citizens of the Russian Federation, oddly enough, it is easier than for many others: covert filming in any form is outlawed in our country (correct if something has changed). But the rest of the democratic world, interspersed with swearing with laughter, is forced to look for more precise and subtle formulations.
The Americans are in a particularly tight spot now. In the States, another scandal is thundering (it is hoped that this one will be the last), connected just with upskirt. The background is simple and already typical: in 2010, in the Boston subway, a man was seen trying to shoot on the phone - naturally, without permission or knowledge - of fellow travelers from below, with an emphasis on the hips and crotch (sorry, so in court documents). The police organized live bait fishing, sending the disguised employees to ride, the peasant pecked - and he was tied (Michael Robertson, 31). Soon the first trial took place, finding the man guilty. It is not surprising: after all, peeping - that is, (I quote) deliberately filming the intimate areas of a partially or completely nude person without her consent at a time when the person suggests privacy - is illegal in the United States. But that was just the beginning of the story, the first iteration, if you will.
In the photo from the police station, Robertson is an ordinary middle-aged white guy. We do not know whether he was, as they say, a pervert or a cyber activist, who by his example wanted to point out the discrepancy between the legal system and the actual state of affairs - well, all the same, like the ever-memorable Aaron Schwartz. But one way or another, Robertson really helped! He appealed and just won the case!
How did he manage? The highest court of the state where the hearings were held (Massachusetts) considered that, being in a public place, a citizen has no right to hope for privacy, and besides, he cannot even be considered partially naked: he is dressed! The subway car is not a bathroom, not a changing room, and a smartphone is not a hidden camera. And in general, if a citizen flaunts parts of his body (intentionally or not), what kind of expectation of privacy can we talk about? Therefore, although peeping in the classical sense is still prohibited, this prohibition does not apply to upskirt.
After such a verdict, natural hysteria broke out in the media. Everyone laughs: some hiding behind, some openly, laughing lawyers, passers-by, TV presenters and the press. Are they laughing and making salty jokes like, did Robertson's lawyer wear panties when she was broadcasting about "the constitutional right of her client to take upskirt pictures in public places"? And at the same time, everyone understands that it will not work to laugh at the problem, and some, through tears of laughter, already demand the revision of the law, which is so far behind technology. But the trouble is, it is not clear what the final wording should be.
One of the options: though over your clothes a person in a public place cannot expect privacy, under clothes he still expects her, and the invasion there should be prohibited. The definition is casuistic and not without flaws, but this is the salt: numbers and civilization has stepped on another corn - and how to get rid of the pain, no one knows!
Naturally, the hapless inhabitants of Boston are not the only ones who have faced this. Other American states suffer from the same "hole" in the law and have already acquitted citizens caught on upskirt. But America, everyone is doing their best. Japan does not prohibit covert filming, but restricts the distribution of materials obtained in this way. Shaky. The UK looks at the problem rather with a grin, which is why celebrities especially suffer - whom the paparazzi do not have yet to shove the lens between their legs. Nothing good either. India and Singapore are stupidly imprisoning upskirt lovers. Rough: what if an accident?
In short, you cannot prohibit, ignore it more dear to yourself, discuss both scary and ridiculous. Such is the inconvenient moment. One thing pleases: instead of boring faces that adorn materials about other collisions of numbers s and society, there are beautiful legs. Enjoy while you can! 🙂
