Prying eyes on privacy through peeping toms
The video surveillance equipments have become smaller, more portable, more easily concealed and more accessible to the general public; its clandestine application has contributed to today's cultural fascination with voyeurism.
IN AN age of modern and revolutionised communication electronic equipments, the privacy of an individual is under siege. The video surveillance equipments have become smaller, more portable, more easily concealed and more accessible to the general public; its clandestine application has contributed to today’s cultural fascination with voyeurism. This advance video surveillance equipment has had a profound adverse impact upon our concept of privacy as we know it.
India is not untouched by the adverse impact of these peeping toms and the newspapers are flooded with various unsavory stories (even from small towns) of surreptitiously concealed video cameras prying into bedrooms, bathrooms, malls, changing rooms, washroom, swimming pool in prurient attempt to film unsuspecting victims while in various states of undress. There has been an unprecedented increase in incidents involving the surreptitious video tapping of unwilling females even in public places like lady’s washroom in call centre’s or BPOs where one can reasonably expect his or her privacy. The BPOs are prone to these voyeuristic acts as females constitute the major work force in this sector and most of them work in night shifts.
A male employee of a call center at Pitampura, Rohini, Delhi, was detained by the police, on the suspicion that he placed a spy camera pen in the female washroom in the office with the intent to click the female workers in various states of undress. Although the offending act of this male employee may appear as ridiculous or laughable at the first instance, but, it is in fact, a very invasive and intimidating crime particularly in our society where the females are respected and worshipped. Many of innocent victims mostly women or even minor girls have unwittingly become the object of video voyeurism websites whose privacy have been surreptitiously invaded using the high gadget peeping toms installed in the washrooms. It is the general human tendency particularly, females who take great precautions that to ensure that either certain bodily actions remain guarded from public view.
While in many other countries, there are now a variety of statutes to deal with voyeuristic conduct in place that seeks to protect these inviolable rights, India is not legging behind to check this new form of felony due to the advancement in the technology. The legislature has introduced Section 66E vide the Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008, which came into force on October 27, 2009. The section recognises the right of privacy as inviolable and makes the felony punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or with both.
The Section 66E IT Act, 2000 recognises the right to protect the human body from unreasonable and obscene intrusion by surreptitious video technology and adequately protects the individual privacy from the crime of video voyeurism which destroys personal privacy and dignity by secretly videotaping or photographing unsuspecting individuals.
The section says that whoever with willful intention captures, publishes or transmits the inappropriate images of any person without his/her consent under circumstances violating the privacy of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment or fine as prescribed. The wordings of the section suggests that even the act of capturing by a digital or non digital camera of images of private parts of an individual without his or her consent would be covered under this section. It is not necessary that publication of the images should take place only through an electronic medium as is the case in Section 67 IT Act, 2000. The publication covers electronic and print medium both. However, the electronic transmission of objectionable images is also covered under this section.
Invasion of privacy may be in public or private space: The wordings recognises that criminal law must break free from fallacious distinctions between public and private space and must specifically recognise an individual’s legitimate expectation of privacy even in the public space. After all video voyeurism is not limited to window peeping. Modern electronics have transformed the deviant, usually solitary, act of peeping into a booming and perverse online-industry, built specifically upon the exploitation of non-consensual pornography.
The legislature was well aware of the fact that the failure on their part to include public place where one can have legitimate expectation of privacy would tacitly grant the video voyeur a license to act with impunity and leaves victims with little or no recourse.
Thus, the wording clearly suggests that the surface of the body is itself a private space. The ability to determine when, to what degree, to whom and under what circumstances the body is exposed, is among the most fundamental aspects of the right to privacy and deeply tied to the concept of human dignity. Therefore, in response to the crime of video voyeurism, the legislature rejected the fallacious notions of any difference between private place where persons can have reasonable expectation of privacy and public place where he can’t. Instead, the legislature recognised a limited, but fundamentally reasonable expectation of privacy that is sensitive to an individual’s desire to control exposure to both intimate acts and intimate body parts regardless of setting.
In other words, the Section 66E protects individual privacy in both enclosed and public settings. It doesn’t rely on the vague test of the reasonable expectations of the victim and instead focuses directly on the unreasonable and offensive nature of the conduct committed by the video voyeur.
Section of IT Act dealing with video voyeurism based on US Federal Law
The section is deeply influenced and based on Section 1801 of ‘Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004’ a Federal Law of United States of America dealing with the felonious act of video voyeurism. The section has been introduced in the Information Technology Act, 2000 by IT Amendment Act, 2008 in view of the dramatic advances in the field of video technology aiding covert clicking of photos without the subject even have a hint about it. The insertion of the said section is a specific attempt to prohibit voyeuristic conduct and by corollary, to protect individual privacy.
A male employee of a call center at Pitampura, Rohini, Delhi, was detained by the police, on the suspicion that he placed a spy camera pen in the female washroom in the office with the intent to click the female workers in various states of undress. Although the offending act of this male employee may appear as ridiculous or laughable at the first instance, but, it is in fact, a very invasive and intimidating crime particularly in our society where the females are respected and worshipped. Many of innocent victims mostly women or even minor girls have unwittingly become the object of video voyeurism websites whose privacy have been surreptitiously invaded using the high gadget peeping toms installed in the washrooms. It is the general human tendency particularly, females who take great precautions that to ensure that either certain bodily actions remain guarded from public view.
The law to deal with voyeuristic conduct
While in many other countries, there are now a variety of statutes to deal with voyeuristic conduct in place that seeks to protect these inviolable rights, India is not legging behind to check this new form of felony due to the advancement in the technology. The legislature has introduced Section 66E vide the Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008, which came into force on October 27, 2009. The section recognises the right of privacy as inviolable and makes the felony punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or with both.
The Section 66E IT Act, 2000 recognises the right to protect the human body from unreasonable and obscene intrusion by surreptitious video technology and adequately protects the individual privacy from the crime of video voyeurism which destroys personal privacy and dignity by secretly videotaping or photographing unsuspecting individuals.
The section says that whoever with willful intention captures, publishes or transmits the inappropriate images of any person without his/her consent under circumstances violating the privacy of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment or fine as prescribed. The wordings of the section suggests that even the act of capturing by a digital or non digital camera of images of private parts of an individual without his or her consent would be covered under this section. It is not necessary that publication of the images should take place only through an electronic medium as is the case in Section 67 IT Act, 2000. The publication covers electronic and print medium both. However, the electronic transmission of objectionable images is also covered under this section.
Invasion of privacy may be in public or private space: The wordings recognises that criminal law must break free from fallacious distinctions between public and private space and must specifically recognise an individual’s legitimate expectation of privacy even in the public space. After all video voyeurism is not limited to window peeping. Modern electronics have transformed the deviant, usually solitary, act of peeping into a booming and perverse online-industry, built specifically upon the exploitation of non-consensual pornography.
The legislature was well aware of the fact that the failure on their part to include public place where one can have legitimate expectation of privacy would tacitly grant the video voyeur a license to act with impunity and leaves victims with little or no recourse.
Thus, the wording clearly suggests that the surface of the body is itself a private space. The ability to determine when, to what degree, to whom and under what circumstances the body is exposed, is among the most fundamental aspects of the right to privacy and deeply tied to the concept of human dignity. Therefore, in response to the crime of video voyeurism, the legislature rejected the fallacious notions of any difference between private place where persons can have reasonable expectation of privacy and public place where he can’t. Instead, the legislature recognised a limited, but fundamentally reasonable expectation of privacy that is sensitive to an individual’s desire to control exposure to both intimate acts and intimate body parts regardless of setting.
In other words, the Section 66E protects individual privacy in both enclosed and public settings. It doesn’t rely on the vague test of the reasonable expectations of the victim and instead focuses directly on the unreasonable and offensive nature of the conduct committed by the video voyeur.
Section of IT Act dealing with video voyeurism based on US Federal Law
The section is deeply influenced and based on Section 1801 of ‘Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004’ a Federal Law of United States of America dealing with the felonious act of video voyeurism. The section has been introduced in the Information Technology Act, 2000 by IT Amendment Act, 2008 in view of the dramatic advances in the field of video technology aiding covert clicking of photos without the subject even have a hint about it. The insertion of the said section is a specific attempt to prohibit voyeuristic conduct and by corollary, to protect individual privacy.
 | Previous Post |
| Next Post |  |
Login
 Login through Social ID
|
Not finding what you are looking for? Search here.
