Huh?????

Ok, I'm really, really confused. The news has been reporting about a young (teen, I think) girl, who while a the mall, experienced a man taking a picture under her dress with his cell phone.

Yes, you read right -- UNDER HER DRESS!!!!! After reporting this, and after much "legalese", it was determined by a "power who be" (judge) that the man could not be prosecuted because at the mall, there is no expectation of privacy.

W WWW HHHHH A AAA TTTTT???????

Under your skirt? Of your private parts????

Now, if she were in a bathroom, or dressing room, she could have that expectation of privacy, but not in the mall arena--so says the judge.

You have got to be kidding!!!!

We wear clothing to keep others from seeing our private areas. We expect that clothing to cover in a decent fashion. We DON'T expect someone to circumvent the clothing in order to photograph our private areas!!

So, does this mean that the flasher is no longer at fault? Should we expect him to cover himself in a public place? If the judge in this case is understood, I think not. We have no "expectation of privacy" in the reverse either. So, flashers should not be prosecuted. Except if they flash in bathrooms or dressing rooms.

And what about our undies? Should we be forgiven for indecent exposure in public areas? Evidently so according to this judge! We shouldn't even have to wear clothing--except in dressing rooms and bathrooms. There is no expectation of privacy in public areas.

So, I can go up to a guy, stick my hand down his shirt, and photograph his abs? Sure, anywhere but in the dressing rooms and bathrooms. He should have no expectation of privacy!

And, what about the girl--who if she is a teen---???? What if this lunatic puts her picture on the web? What if he alters it? Does she have an "expectation" that her image will not be used for predators?

I just don't get it!!! Expectation of privacy? Give me a break. And get that camera out of that judge's hand!!!