Upskirt
Upskirting or upskirt photography is the practice of taking nonconsensual photographs under a person's skirt or kilt, capturing an image of the crotch area, underwear, and sometimes genitalia. An "upskirt" is a photograph, video, or illustration which incorporates such an image, although the term may also be used to refer to "the area of the body" inside a skirt, usually from below and while being worn. The practice is regarded as a form of sexual fetishism or voyeurism, and is similar in nature to downblouse photography. The ethical and legal issue relating to upskirt photography is one of  a reasonable expectation of privacy, even in a public place. Social attitudes. The term "upskirt" is relatively recent, but the concept and interest therein are not. Looking up a woman's skirt was depicted in the 1767 painting "The Swing" by Jean-Honoré Fragonard. In "polite society", looking up a lady's skirt was regarded as impolite or rude. In less polite society, looking up a lady's skirt or her lifting up the skirt or otherwise exposing her underwear was regarded as bawdy, as in the case of cabaret dances such as the can-can or in the case  of entertainment involving the raising of a dancer's dress by her spinning rapidly. By the polite society, such behaviour was widely judged as indecent. The sudden popularity in the 1960s of the miniskirt brought the concept out onto the streets, and was viewed by many as mass exhibitionism. One commentator in the 1960s said, "In European countries... they ban mini-skirts in the streets and say they're an invitation to rape..." By contrast, many women viewed the new style as rebellion against previous clothing styles and as women's liberation of their own bodies. For the first time , many women felt comfortable exposing their thighs, whether on the beach in a swimsuit or in street wear, and were even relaxed when in some situations their underwear would be visible. Some upskirt and downblouse images originate as innocent fun images which are made with the knowledge and lack of objection of the females affected. However, some of these images can end up being more widely distributed or being posted onto the Internet without the knowledge and consent of the subject, for example as revenge porn following a relationship breakup. Some upskirt and downblouse photos and videos are made specifically  to upload onto the Internet, where many viewers seek such images taken surreptitiously (and presumably without the subject's consent). Such photographs are common on fetish and pornographic websites, as well as on video sharing sites such as YouTube. Attitudes hardened with the very widespread availability and use of digital photographic and video technology, most recently camera phones. Such technology was also being used to record upskirt and downblouse images for uploading onto the internet. Specialist websites came into existence where people could share such images, and terms such as "upskirt", "downblouse" and "nipple dress" (i.e., when an erect nipple  is evident through the material of a woman's dress) came into use. Of particular concern were images of minors and of people who could be identified. Celebrities were popular victims of such efforts. Issues of privacy and reputation began to be raised. The creation and viewing of this type of image came increasingly to be described as forms of voyeurism and pornography. This was not that most of such images were sexual in nature, with most of them being quite innocent by themselves, but because of their association with the nature of the website on which they were posted  and because of the size of the collections. Safety shorts. Many K-pop girl groups wear "safety shorts", typically black cycling shorts, under miniskirts or denim cut-off shorts to prevent upskirting while retaining freedom of movement on stage. In countries such as the UK, schoolgirls sometimes wear shorts under their skirts to protect themselves from upskirting. Legal position. Many countries do not have laws which protect a person's right to personal privacy, especially in a public place, but the legal position does vary considerably. Australia. All jurisdictions within Australia have passed laws making it illegal to take upskirt  photos in public places without the person's consent. Finland. 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. Germany. In November 2019, the German Bundestag approved a bill to criminalize both upskirting and "criminalize photographing victims of accidents or pictures that" show a dead person in a grossly offensive way; German media has referred to the latter as rubbernecking. India. 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. Japan. In Japan, some prefectures have laws against upskirt photography. New Zealand. 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. Singapore. 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 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. In 2018 it was reported that a hundred police reports a year had been made since 2013 on alleged upskirting crimes, along with about five hundred "insult to modesty" cases reported annually since 2015. It is illegal to upload, download and share voyeuristic photos and videos in Singapore 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 two years and three 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. 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. United Kingdom. England and Wales. 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. Before 2019, there were no specific laws against upskirting in England and Wales. When upskirting took place in public, it was outside of the scope of the offence of voyeurism under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. 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. Following a public  campaign to change the law, a government bill was introduced to the House of Commons on 21 June 2018. Speaking on the government's behalf in the House of Lords, Baroness Vere of Norbiton said the legislation would also protect men wearing kilts. The Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019 received royal assent on 12 February 2019, taking effect two months later. Scotland. 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. Northern Ireland. 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. United States. 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. Additionally, many state laws address the issue as well. 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. In March 2014, the 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. A law was then passed in Massachusetts to ban the practice . 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."