FC: Wisconsin may ban disabling spycams -- except for hidden sexcams

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Mon Feb 18 2002 - 19:52:31 PST

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: NYT: Virginia wants arrestees' DNA; Hong Kong plans digital ID"

    [Of course if "current law" really does provide "various penalties for 
    damaging or misappropriating" someone else's property, why -- except to pad 
    the resumes of legislators -- do we need *new* laws? --Declan]
    Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 16:03:16 -0600
    From: Ben Masel <bmaselat_private>
    Subject: (Wisconsin) AB 435 Tampering with a security device or 
    surveillance device and providing penalties
    Assembly Criminal Justice Commitee hearing Wed 1 PM
                                         Room 417 N State Capitol
    Analysis from Legislative Reference Bureau
    "Current law provides various penalties for damaging or misappropriating
    the property of another.  This bill prohibits a person from tampering
    with a security device or surveillance device that is owned by another
    by disconnecting, altering, dismantling, damaging, covering up,
    removing, or destroying the device without the consent of the owner and
    with the intent either to cause the device to become inoperative or to
    interfere with or circumvent the operation of the device.
    A person who violates the prohibition created in the bill may be fined
    not more than $500 or imprisoned for not more than 30 days or both,
    except that a person may be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned
    for not more than five years or both if the person violates the
    prohibition with the intent to make it less likely that another felony
    will be detected or that a person who commits another felony will be
    identified with the felony.  The bill also provides that a person
    charged with violating the prohibition created in the bill has a defense
    to the charge if he or she tampered with a surveillance device that is
    installed or used with the intent to observe any nude or partially nude
    person without the consent of the person observed."
    Full text:
    So it would seem there is no Defence if the surveillance device is
    installed for any other illegal purpose. Are these guys as dumb as they
    Criminal Justice Committee members:
    Representatives Suder, chairperson, Gundrum, vice chairperson, Bies, J.
    Fitzgerald,  Jeskewitz, F. Lasee, Loeffelholz, Owens, Staskunas, Wood,
    Young, Colón, Sherman, and Boyle.
    I am not currently Licensed to Practice in this State.
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Feb 18 2002 - 21:15:33 PST