alarming information - voyeurism & law

[peeguy23 17]

I just had an interesting conversation with google chatgpt because Bing would not answer and I asked if voyeur videos were illegal had it said yes anyone filmed without permission is illegal content and it said you could get in trouble for watching them well I said that voyeur videos were woven in regular porn on the porn sight it said just watch regular porn and not the voyeur videos I said that was just not possible to separate the two and just skip over I know most porn content on porn web sights are voyeur videos Is google chatgpt right about this because all of a sudden all porn web sights seem to be in jeopardy If someone could please answer with knowledge about this and just to ease my mind thank you

[Carb0nBased 639]

FIrstly, I wonder what jurisdiction ChatGPT thinks it lives in. There is a whole planet of different countries with different laws on this sort of thing. Even in the United States, the laws on voyeurism vary from state to state--it's a misdemeanor in some and a felony in others (this is for the person who secretly films people--not a site that happens to host the content or a viewer). A few weeks ago, there was an article on CNN about AirBnB, apparently it's an open secret that they have somewhat of a problem with hosts putting hidden cameras in their rentals to film guests when they are getting naked. The article said that AirBnB usually tries to settle privately with the host and guest(s), to avoid the law getting involved and leading to a court case that might shed public light on the problem and tarnish the company's reputation. And even if violated guests DO involve the law, what they can do varies significantly by state. I believe at one time not every state even HAD laws about hidden cameras, now in the age of the Internet and social media they all have SOME law but the details vary significantly.

Most voyeur sites seem to be based in either Asia or eastern Europe--I have no idea what the laws are there. And a decent number of them also are staged, they pretend to show hidden camera footage but in fact the women are hired to act like they are on hidden camera just the same way any other porn (or regular) actor is. I would think that most if not all sites that have regular porn (where the people appearing obviously know they are filmed) AND also purported voyeur content are of the latter type--they already hire actresses, so they might as well have them pretend to be on hidden camera in some videos if that's what some people like. The true hidden camera sites are likely to all be ones that sell themselves completely on that basis--if you're worried about the legal implications (or just find that unethical) then you can avoid them. The only "porn sites" that likely have genuine hidden camera footage AND actual porn are Youtube-like video hosting sites. Much of the actual porn on some of those sites (aside from the member-created amateur content) is also likely there illegally--but for copyright reasons rather than the nature of the content.

Edited August 1 by Carb0nBased

[gldenwetgoose 21,321]

I hope you don't mind, I've amended the title very slightly so that it will be more obvious in any future searches.  It's an interesting topic and worth highlighting.

It's also the case in the UK that in 2019 The Voyeurism (Offences) (No.2) Bill, known as the “Upskirting Bill” and the Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019 came into force which makes 'upskirting' illegal. These are adding two offences to the Sexual Offences Act of 2003. Potentially carrying prison sentences, which whilst aimed at 'upskirt' voyeur images would no doubt be jumped on in the case of photographing ladies peeing without consent.  These offences apply when: Without consent, an individual operates equipment or records an image beneath a person’s clothing, or the offender has a motive of either obtaining sexual gratification or causing humiliation, distress or alarm to the victim.

In terms of that 'upskirting' this is legislation is a common trend across many countries as Wikipedia shows here.

Also specific to the UK, in 2019 the law changed, actually relaxing a number of sexual practices which had been considered illegal, but are now permitted in pornography between consenting adults. Essentially BDSM related, this includes urine related porn between consenting adults (hurrah!)

 

From the perspective of us as users of the site here, where we have no way of knowing if consent was given - it's a challenge.

We have site rules in place not to post anything illegal, but of course content may be legal in the country that user lives in.  We don't allow revenge porn, such as non-consensual posting of pics of an ex-partner.   In a lot of cases we're not able to police every single post, so we do expect users to follow the 'reaonableness' principle of ensuring they are compliant in what they post.

It's interesting that on the whole we saw the content of the 'upskirt' page change gradually to being posed models rather than long lens captures of uninvolved images over the period after the UK law was passed. There are of course exceptions from certain users, but on the whole it's a trend we see.

 

[TMN_Femboi 1,048]

I have only one thing to say about ai-based information

Trusting it should be more of a reason to lock ppl away than watching others pee could ever be.

[thisguy20 934]

With so called "AI" if you're lucky it just gives you plagiarism.  If you're unlucky it gives you information which is straight-up wrong.

[UnauthorisedGuy 505]

Many western nations have criminalised recording persons without their consent. As far as I'm aware, none of these laws make it a criminal offence to view these recordings.

Even if simply viewing them was a criminal offence, proving that a particular person had viewed an image or video may be difficult. Going on news reports, it seems most prosecutions in Australia for possessing illegal pornography rely on tip offs to the police or customs searches of people returning from overseas.

In summary, even if it is illegal, I think the chances of being prosecuted for viewing voyeur content are almost zero.

[peeguy23 17]

I feel better now, you know I think about Galician videos and this ThisVids and all the pee videos that capture girls peeing they are all voyeur, but like I said you cannot choose between the regular porn and the voyeur videos on a porn site its just impossible to separate the two I was just making sure it was not something that could land you in jail just for watching  thanks for the information it eases my mind about this I guess chatgpt was wrong in saying watching voyeur videos was illegal.

[MR897 3]

As others have pointed out, laws very widely, but I know that where I live, in New York State, whether or not filming someone is a crime depends on whether or not the filming or photography takes place in a setting where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.  So yes, upskirt photos are illegal because it reasonable to expect privacy inside your skirt.  A hidden camera in a public bathroom would be illegal, because there’s an expectation of privacy in the bathroom.  If, however, someone were to decide to expose their genitals and piss on a public sidewalk or in a public park or whatever, it’s perfectly legal to film. 

[kinda_gay_kinda_horny 18]

I'll add my 2 cents.

You should trust ai like you trust politicians (dont)

I figured it was pretty obvious that taking lewd photos/videos of someone without there consent is illegal.

But I also figure it obvious that most stuff you'd see on a porn site is staged.

[peeguy23 17]

What about all the toilet videos that are on the internet if it is reasonable expectation of privacy than we could all get in trouble for watching them but we don' those videos are on all the porn sights and it just seems normal to run across them I know some of them are staged but there are some where the person did not know they were being filmed

[gg111 91]

Voyeur videos have always been a source of guilt for me. On the one hand they can be extremely hot, but on the other hand I think it’s wrong to invade someone’s privacy without their permission.
 

Even though I’m not the one who took the video, I usually feel especially gross after “using” a voyeur video. After all, I wouldn’t want myself or someone I care about to be the subject of a voyeur video.

I’m not trying to sound high and mighty or morally superior, because I’ve used voyeur videos countless times, but I try not to these days for the above reasons. 
 

(I’m referring to true voyeur videos, btw. Staged or roleplay videos are fine to me because they are made with consent.)

[Alpian 672]

Using AI-tools requires profound knowledge of a given subject to

a) design prompts properly
b) evaluate the output

In this context, I believe legal matters and porn related stuff are especially difficult, as the AI-publishers try to teach their models not to create porn (there are important legal and reputational risks) and for a good legal analysis, the prompt must be very detailed and precise.

Also, never forget that you can easily goad current GPT models to obtain the answer you want - just try to ask "Are you sure? I thought it was ... [the opposite]" and often enough the tool will tell you "Sorry, you are right, I made a mistake, actually [the exact opposite of what it said before]". So in general, avoid asking AI about stuff you don't have a solid knowledge of.

Concerning the legal context, legislation on the protection of privacy has evolved a lot these last ten years, driven by the EU GDPR. When previously a (human, not AI) model held very little say in the use of pictures (the author is the photographer, i.e. he holds the copyright), now the photographer has much higher obligations of obtaining proper approval by the model (e.g. you can't tell the model you're shooting for a swimwear catalog and then posting nip-slips or wardrobe malfunction on porn sites). These new laws usually also cover posting of material on the web - if you don't have the person's written approval, you'd better not post it. You can see this influence with the sharp decline in true voyeur material over the last decade or so: webhosts will block posters of offending material and provide contact details to law enforcement. If you post revenge porn (in the EU, that is), you can actually go to prison now when before (depending on the country within the EU) it often was just a misdemeanour.

From what I know, in the jurisdictions that I know a little, only underage porn is a crime to be possessed or watched. This was implemented in some places to destroy the market for such material and make it crystal clear that it belongs in the same category as rape, torture, or murder (and it causes some headaches as there have been collateral effects of minors getting a criminal record for sharing their nudes between friends, not sure if their parents got into trouble as well).

To make it short: If in doubt, read the law applicable to your location yourself. Often, Wikipedia is a good starting point to guide you to the legal texts. If in doubt, ask your lawyer 😉 

Edited August 24 by Alpian
clarity

[MR897 3]

On 8/1/2024 at 11:56 AM, peeguy23 said:

What about all the toilet videos that are on the internet if it is reasonable expectation of privacy than we could all get in trouble for watching them but we don' those videos are on all the porn sights and it just seems normal to run across them I know some of them are staged but there are some where the person did not know they were being filmed

No, we couldn’t, because unlike with CP, simply possessing the video is not a crime.  Filming it is.