Upskirt

All jurisdictions within Australia have passed laws making it illegal to take upskirt photos in public places without the person's consent.[10]

In 2010, an elderly man had his camera confiscated and was fined 12 day-fines for the act of public obscenity (which was thought to be the closest match in the criminal code), having taken dozens of upskirt photos in a shopping centre in Turku.[11]

In November 2019, the German Bundestag approved a bill to criminalize both upskirting and rubbernecking.[12]

In India, under section 66E, of the Information Technology Act, "Whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding two lakh (200,000) rupees, or with both". The words "private area" mean the naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast; "under circumstances violating privacy" means circumstances in which a person can have a reasonable expectation that any part of his or her private area would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.

In Japan, some prefectures have laws against upskirt photography.[13]

In New Zealand it is illegal to make a visual recording of a person's intimate parts in any setting in which the person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy". This includes public and private settings. It is also illegal to possess or distribute such images.[14]

Upskirting has become an issue in Singapore, with many reports of spy cameras and mobile phone cameras being used. Reported incidents are lower than in other areas of Asia, but some believe that the reported cases represent only a small fraction of the total. Clinical psychologist Joel Yang has argued that in contrast to societal stereotypes of the individuals responsible, many are conventional in appearance and have respectable jobs.[15] In 2018 it was reported that 100 police reports a year had been made since 2013 on alleged upskirting crimes, along with around 500 "insult to modesty" cases reported annually since 2015. It is illegal to upload, download and share voyeuristic photos and videos in Singapore[16] and there are comparatively long sentences for upskirting offences. For example, a former employee of law firm Drew & Napier received a four-week jail sentence in 2020 for taking inappropriate photos of a female colleague. A man was jailed for 2 years and 3 months for taking nearly 1,400 illicit videos of women and children in the period between 2003 and 2016 using his mobile phone, spy watches and spy pens.[17][18] Nevertheless, there have been controversies, such as the case of the then 23-year-old National University of Singapore student Monica Baey, who claimed that another student had taken a video of her while she was taking a shower in her hostel. The accused was considered to have received a lenient sentence when given a 12-month warning by the Singapore Police Force and suspended from the university for one year.[19][20]

Despite widespread voyeurism, few reports are made and fewer charges are brought.[21]

As of April 2019, upskirting is a specific offence of voyeurism under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It is defined as creating images of or operating equipment to view genitals, buttocks or underwear beneath clothing where they would not normally be visible, for the purpose of sexual gratification or to cause humiliation, alarm or distress. The maximum sentence for the offence is two years' imprisonment and in the more serious sexual cases those convicted are added to the Violent and Sex Offender Register.[22][23][24]

Before 2019, there were no specific laws against upskirting in England and Wales.[25] When upskirting took place in public, it was outside of the scope of the offence of voyeurism under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.[26] Nevertheless, prosecutions for upskirting were successful under the common law offence of outraging public decency, which requires the presence of at least two other people and for the act to be done in a public place.[27]

Following a public campaign to change the law, a government bill was introduced to the House of Commons on 21 June 2018.[28][29] Speaking on the government's behalf in the House of Lords, Baroness Vere of Norbiton said that the legislation would also protect men wearing kilts.[30][31] The Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019 received royal assent on 12 February 2019, taking effect two months later.

Upskirting is a specific offence in Scotland under the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. This Act, which was passed by the Scottish Parliament, extended the definition of voyeurism to cover upskirting.[32][33]

As in England and Wales before 2019, there is no specific offence of upskirting in Northern Ireland, but can in certain circumstances be prosecuted as the common law offence of outraging public decency.[34]

In the United States, laws vary by state. At the federal level the United States enacted the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004 to punish those who intentionally make an image of an individual's private areas without consent, when the person knew the subject had an expectation of privacy. This act applies only in areas under federal jurisdiction.[35]

Additionally, many state laws address the issue as well.[36]

A 2005 Illinois law made it a crime to videotape or transmit upskirt videos of other people without their consent. A 2014 Chicago ordinance made the crime punishable by a $500 fine.[37]

In March 2014, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overruled a lower court upskirt ruling because the women photographed were not nude or partially nude, saying that existing so-called Peeping Tom laws protect people from being photographed in dressing rooms and bathrooms when nude or partially nude, but it does not protect clothed people in public areas.[38] A law was then passed in Massachusetts to ban the practice.[39]

In September 2014 the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals voided the state's statute against "improper photography or visual recording" including "upskirt" photos, saying its wording was overly broad. The court's opinion stated: "Protecting someone who appears in public from being the object of sexual thoughts seems to be the sort of 'paternalistic interest in regulating the defendant’s mind' that the First Amendment was designed to guard against."[40][41]