Then some idiot got caught taking shots, and his lawyer found a loophole.

I have no idea what everybody assumed.

but considering that it was a 39-0 Senate vote within 24 hours of the court ruling...

As for the Senate vote, how many Republicans or Democrats, presented with a bill to vote on, are going to vote against sticking a camera up a woman's skirt without her knowledge or consent? And what do you think would happen to him or her the next time he or she was up for re-election?

I don't know what the Senate assumed. The reason I say that is that stories come out all the time about people, mostly female, being filmed without their knowledge this way or through holes in ceilings and walls, or in bathrooms. I think, if I were a legislator, I would think to myself, "Gee there oughtta be a law."

Then, I'd think, "Wait. I'm paid to make laws. I should probably get on this."

and the prosecutors who took the case to court assumed what he was doing was against the law.

it looks like the judges in the lower courts thought so as well. The case was argued all the way up to the Supreme Judicial Court (Massachusetts Supreme Court) which looked at the language of the law and said, basically, "Guess what. Sorry, but it's not in there." Public reaction seems to have been universally stunned at this discovery.

I remember years back there were cases where women were secretly videotaped, and the courts ruled this was legal because all the laws about surreptitious recordings dealt with audio, not video, recordings--cheap video equipment not having been invented at the time the laws were written. As long as there was no audio in the recordings, the tapes were perfectly legal. Here too the various legislatures had to play catch-up.

This happens with every new technology. The laws have to be general enough to cover all reasonable contingencies, but at the same time not SO general that they get applied in other ways people don't like. I believe not too long ago in Massachusetts the courts ruled that the same laws that prohibit surreptitious recordings also meant that citizens couldn't use recording equipment when stopped by police on the highway. So if someone recorded a cop beating up a perfectly innocent person, the recording was inadmissible in court, and the person who made the recording was subject to arrest. Don't know whether that glitch has been fixed yet, or not.

You're right though, what this needs is for some legislator in each jurisdiction to take this on pro-actively. Given the state of American politics these days, I doubt that happens very much, no matter what the issue.

Best wishes.

Yes, legislators should be thoughtful and pro-active. Like not waiting for 911 before you think a pilot's cabin should have a lock on the door (and, as to a more recent event, the co-pilot should not be a terrorist.)

Best wishes to you as well. P.S. Keep posting! We need both the thought provocation and the laughs.

that it wasn't something I gave much thought to, mainly because I wouldn't do it myself, so it just wouldn't occur to me...

But yeah, in the larger scope of things, I was still surprised to find out that there was no penalty for doing it.