The Reasonableness of Remaining Unobserved: A Comparative Analysis of Visual Surveillance and Voyeurism in Criminal Law

Bert-Jaap Koops, Bryce Clayton Newell, Andrew Roberts, Ivan Škorvánek, Maša Galič
{"title":"The Reasonableness of Remaining Unobserved: A Comparative Analysis of Visual Surveillance and Voyeurism in Criminal Law","authors":"Bert-Jaap Koops,&nbsp;Bryce Clayton Newell,&nbsp;Andrew Roberts,&nbsp;Ivan Škorvánek,&nbsp;Maša Galič","doi":"10.1111/lsi.12348","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The criminalization of offensive, privacy-intrusive behavior is an important form of privacy protection. However, few studies exist of visual observation in criminal law. We address this gap by researching when nonconsensual visual observation is deemed harmful enough to trigger criminal sanctions, and on what basis the law construes the “reasonableness of remaining unobserved,” through a nine-country comparative study. We distinguish between voyeurism-centric approaches (focusing largely on nudity and sex) and broader, intrusion-centric approaches (such as observation inside closed spaces). Both approaches explicitly or implicitly reflect “reasonable” privacy expectations, listing criteria for situations in which people can reasonably expect to remain unobserved or unrecorded. We present a framework for criminalizing nonconsensual visual observation, encompassing factors of technology use, place, subject matter, and surreptitiousness, supplemented by factors of intent, identifiability, and counter-indicators to prevent over-criminalization. This framework is relevant for protecting visual aspects of privacy in view of individuals' underlying autonomy interests.</p>","PeriodicalId":47418,"journal":{"name":"Law and Social Inquiry-Journal of the American Bar Foundation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/lsi.12348","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Social Inquiry-Journal of the American Bar Foundation","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lsi.12348","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The criminalization of offensive, privacy-intrusive behavior is an important form of privacy protection. However, few studies exist of visual observation in criminal law. We address this gap by researching when nonconsensual visual observation is deemed harmful enough to trigger criminal sanctions, and on what basis the law construes the “reasonableness of remaining unobserved,” through a nine-country comparative study. We distinguish between voyeurism-centric approaches (focusing largely on nudity and sex) and broader, intrusion-centric approaches (such as observation inside closed spaces). Both approaches explicitly or implicitly reflect “reasonable” privacy expectations, listing criteria for situations in which people can reasonably expect to remain unobserved or unrecorded. We present a framework for criminalizing nonconsensual visual observation, encompassing factors of technology use, place, subject matter, and surreptitiousness, supplemented by factors of intent, identifiability, and counter-indicators to prevent over-criminalization. This framework is relevant for protecting visual aspects of privacy in view of individuals' underlying autonomy interests.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
未观察的合理性:刑法中监视与窥淫的比较分析
对侵犯隐私的冒犯性行为进行刑事定罪是隐私权保护的重要形式。然而,刑法中关于视觉观察的研究却很少。我们通过对9个国家的比较研究,研究了在什么情况下,非自愿的视觉观察会被认为有害到足以引发刑事制裁,以及法律在什么基础上解释了“不被观察的合理性”,从而解决了这一差距。我们区分了以偷窥为中心的方法(主要关注裸体和性)和更广泛的以侵入为中心的方法(如在封闭空间内观察)。这两种方法都或明或暗地反映了“合理的”隐私期望,列出了人们可以合理地期望不被观察或不被记录的情况的标准。我们提出了一个将未经同意的视觉观察定罪的框架,包括技术使用、地点、主题和秘密性等因素,辅以意图、可识别性和反指标,以防止过度定罪。鉴于个人潜在的自主利益,这一框架与保护视觉方面的隐私有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
53
期刊最新文献
Mercy and the Construction of Social Control: A Four-Site Analysis of Clemency Exclusion from Within: Noncitizens and the Rise of Discriminatory Licensing Laws Legal Strategies at the Governance Precipice: Transnational Lawyers in the European Union’s Sovereign Debt Crisis (2010–2012) Aspirational Laws in Action: A Field Experiment Many Shades of Success: Bottom-up Indicators of Individual Success in Community Courts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1