The Reasonableness of Remaining Unobserved: A Comparative Analysis of Visual Surveillance and Voyeurism in Criminal Law
Bert-Jaap Koops
Bert-Jaap Koops: is a Professor of Regulation and Technology, Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society (TILT), Tilburg University and may be contacted at [email protected].
Search for more papers by this authorBryce Clayton Newell
Bryce Clayton Newell: is an Assistant Professor, School of Information Science, University of Kentucky.
Search for more papers by this authorAndrew Roberts
Andrew Roberts: is an Associate Professor, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne.
Search for more papers by this authorIvan Škorvánek
Ivan Škorvánek: is a PhD Researcher, Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society (TILT), Tilburg University.
Search for more papers by this authorMaša Galič
Maša Galič: is a PhD Researcher, Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society (TILT), Tilburg University.
Search for more papers by this authorBert-Jaap Koops
Bert-Jaap Koops: is a Professor of Regulation and Technology, Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society (TILT), Tilburg University and may be contacted at [email protected].
Search for more papers by this authorBryce Clayton Newell
Bryce Clayton Newell: is an Assistant Professor, School of Information Science, University of Kentucky.
Search for more papers by this authorAndrew Roberts
Andrew Roberts: is an Associate Professor, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne.
Search for more papers by this authorIvan Škorvánek
Ivan Škorvánek: is a PhD Researcher, Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society (TILT), Tilburg University.
Search for more papers by this authorMaša Galič
Maša Galič: is a PhD Researcher, Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society (TILT), Tilburg University.
Search for more papers by this authorThe research for this article was made possible by a grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), Project Number 453-14-004.
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.
References
- Agre, Philip E. “Introduction.” In Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape, edited by Philip E. Agre and Marc Rotenberg, 1–28. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998.
- Blok, Peter. Het Recht op Privacy. The Hague: Boom Juridische uitgevers, 2002.
- Brighenti, Andrea. “Visibility: A Category for the Social Sciences.” Current Sociology 55, no. 3 (2007): 323–42.
- Crespi, Alberto, Federico Stella, and Giuseppe Zuccalà. Commentario breve al codice penale. Padua, Italy: CEDAM, 2008.
- Department of Justice (Canada). Voyeurism as a Criminal Offence: A Consultation Paper. Ottawa, ON: Communications Branch, Department of Justice, 2002. http://justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/voy/part1_context.html#def.
- Dolcini, Emilio, and Giorgio Marinucci, eds. Codice penale commentato. Milan: IPSOA, 2011.
- Filek, Bartłomiej. “Wizerunek nagiej osoby jako znamię przestępstwa z art. 191a § 1 k.k.” Prokuratura i Prawo 7–8 (2012): 61–77.
- Fokkens, Jan Watse. “Artikel 139f.” In Het Wetboek van Strafrecht, edited by T. J. Noyon, G. E. Langemeijer, and J. Remmelink. Deventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 2004.
- Garofoli, Roberto. Manuale di diritto penale. Parte speciale II. Milan: Giuffrè, 2006.
- Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books, 1959.
- Home Office (UK). Setting the Boundaries: Reforming the Law on Sex Offences. London: Home Office, 2000. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/vol1main.pdf?view=Binary.
- Hutchinson, Terry. “Doctrinal Research: Researching the Jury.” In Research Methods in Law, edited by Dawn Watkins and Mandy Burton, 7–33. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2013.
- Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, and Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen, eds. Strafgesetzbuch, Band 2, 1376–90. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2013.
- Koops, Bert-Jaap, and Theo de Roos. “Materieel Strafrecht en ICT.” In Strafrecht en ICT, edited by Bert-Jaap Koops, 23–75. The Hague: SDU, 2007.
- Koskela, Hille. “Webcams, TV Shows and Mobile Phones: Empowering Exhibitionism.” Surveillance and Society 2, no. 2/3 (2004): 199–215.
- Królikowski, M., and A. Sakowicz. “Art. 191a.” In Kodeks karny Część ogólna, Komentarz, edited by M. Królikowski and R. Zawłocki, 553–58. Warsaw: C. H. Beck, 2015.
- Liptak, Adam. “Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech.” New York Times, June 12, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html.
- Lyon, David. Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007.
- Mantovani, Ferrando. Diritto Penale. Parte Speciale I. Delitti Contro la Persona. Padua: CEDAM, 2013.
- Mozgawa, Marek. “Art. 191a.” In Kodeks Karny: Praktyczny Komentarz, edited by Patrycja Kozłowska-Kalisz, Marek Mozgawa, Marek Kulik, and Magdalena Budyn-Kulik. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer, 2010.
-
Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Screen 16, no. 3 (1975): 6–18.
10.1093/screen/16.3.6 Google Scholar
- Nissenbaum, Helen. Privacy in Context. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2010.
- Palazzo, Francesco Carlo. “Considerazioni in Tema di Tutela Della Riservatezza (a Proposito del “Nuovo” art. 615-bis).” Rivista Italiana di Diritto e Procedura Penale 18 (1975): 126–58.
- Rössler, Beate. The Value of Privacy. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005.
- Sturken, Marita, and Lisa Cartwright. Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
- Šugman Stubbs, Katja, and Primož Gorkič. Dokazovanje v kazenskem postopku. Ljubljana, Slovenia: GV Založba, 2011.
- Ten Voorde, J. M. “Artikel 139f.” In Strafrecht, edited by C. P. M. Cleiren, J. H. Crijns, and M. J. M. Verpalen. Deventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 2016.
- Warylewski, Jaroslaw. Prestępstwa przeciwko dobrom indywidualnym. Warsaw: C. H. Beck, 2012.
- Weinstein, Deena, and Michael Weinstein. “On the Visual Constitution of Society: The Contributions of Georg Simmel and Jean-Paul Sartre to a Sociology of the Senses.” History of European Ideas 5, no. 4 (1984): 349–62.
- Zweigert, Konrad, and Hein Kötz. An Introduction to Comparative Law. Translated by Tony Weir. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Cases Cited
- BGH, judgment of 25 April 2017, 4 StR 244/16.
- Cass. 28 November 2007, RP (2008).
- Czech Supreme Court Resolution 4 Tdo 843 (2015).
- Czech Supreme Court Resolution 6 Tdo 942 (2011).
- Czech Supreme Court Resolution 6 Tdo 1028 (2010).
- Higher Court in Ljubljana, Criminal Division, Decision I Kp 106 (2008).
- Higher Court in Ljubljana, Criminal Division, Decision VII Kp 39584 (2014).
- PNSI v. MacRitchie, [2008] NICA 28 (2008).
- R. v. Bassett, [2008] EWCA Crim 1174 (2008).
- R. v. Lebenfish, [2014] ONCJ 130 (2014).
- R. v. Rudiger, BCSC 1397 §§74, 77–78 (2011).
- R. v. Swyer, [2007] EWCA Crim. 204 (2007).
- R. v. Taylor, [2015] ONCJ 449 (2015).
- Slovenian Supreme Court, Criminal Division, Judgment I Ips 76261 (2010).
- Slovenian Supreme Court, Criminal Division, Judgment VSL II Kp 76261 (2010).
- Smith v. Chief Superintendent, Woking Police Station, 76 Cr App R 234 (1983).
Statutes Cited
- California Penal Code § 647(i)–(j) (2017).
- Conn. Gen. Stats. § 53a–189c (2017).
- Criminal Code of Canada (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46) § 162 (2017).
- Czech Criminal Code § 181 (2017).
- Dutch Criminal Code, Art. 139f (2017).
- Dutch Criminal Code, Art. 441b (2017).
- Fla. Stats. §§ 810.14(a), 810.145 (2017).
- German Criminal Code § 201a (2017).
- Hawai'i Rev. Stats. 711–1110.9 (2017).
- Italian Criminal Code, Art. 615-bis (2017).
- Italian Criminal Code, Art. 734-bis (2017).
- Kan. Stats. § 21–6101 (2017).
- Miss. Code § 97-29-63 (2017).
- New York Penal Law § 250 (2017).
- Polish Criminal Code, Art. 191a (2017).
- Polish Criminal Code, Art. 267(3) (2017).
- Sexual Offences Act (England and Wales) (2003).
- Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order (2008).
- Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act (2009).
- Slovenian Criminal Code, Art. 138 (2017).
- Rev. Code of Wash. (RCW) § 9A.44.115 (2017).
- Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 1801 (2012).