Local Loser on twitter

[KTrain]

I don't think it's grainier when you're dealing with filming up skirts. That's black and white a crime.

[Oling_Roachinen]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ding-1.4160817

Hundreds of posts on the account included surreptitiously recorded photos and video of Calgary women's clothed breasts, buttocks and genital areas — including videos filmed up women's skirts while they walked.

It's those videos that led to the voyeurism charges, but Dayley said the hundreds of other images on the account were also "extremely disturbing," even if they don't cross the threshold required to lay criminal charges.

He isn't being charged for the filming of clothed butts from behind. It was for the upskirts and maybe downblouses. I don't think there's much of a grey area there.

162 (1) Every one commits an offence who, surreptitiously, observes — including by mechanical or electronic means — or makes a visual recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, if

(a) the person is in a place in which a person can reasonably be expected to be nude, to expose his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or to be engaged in explicit sexual activity;

(b) the person is nude, is exposing his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or is engaged in explicit sexual activity, and the observation or recording is done for the purpose of observing or recording a person in such a state or engaged in such an activity; or

(c) the observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose.

Reasonable expectation of privacy would include not having your underwear or gentials being viewed if wearing a 'standard' skirt or dress even in a public place. It would require someone to intentionally, secretly and for a sexual purpose to view someone's body that they would reasonably expect to be private. So there would be a difference between ogling a person in a bikini and hiding under the stairs to catch a crotch shot.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Well if it's just the upskirt thing that actually violates the code provision I think I'm cool with that being voyeurism even if you're not using a camera, really. Not to mention that I suspect if they have terabytes of pictures and videos, some of them are going to be much worse than just that and no doubt actually do capture unsuspecting women at home or in changing rooms or whatever. I'm just saying that I don't think whoever drafted that provision was intending to criminalize checking out someone's assets on the street.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by TheFlamesVan

Who could be scared of a Jeffrey? Generally just a nice bloke from down the road.

You *would* say that, Jeffrey.

[Nyah]

Originally Posted by firebug

Pretty sure I recognize him from my time riding the 117 express bus.

I think I do too.

[Huntingwhale]

Lost in all this are the 17k+ followers who followed this guy on twitter and a large amount undoubtedly have those images stored on their computers. Now I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm completely wrong here when it comes to understanding voyeurism law. But couldn't those people be charged for possession/accessing the material?

It's often said (from many law enforcement agencies themserlves) that if you view/access child pornography, even though you yourself are not involved in the abuse/production of the material itself, you are ''just as guilty'' since you provide the market for it. That you are part of the problem. People get charged for possession of that stuff all the time, even though they weren't the guy committing the act. So what exactly is the difference here? Obviously even accessing child pornography is a crime. But not voyeuristic images like this?

[CaptainCrunch]

I doubt that anything will be done to track down the followers. It would overwhelm the police in multiple jurisdictions and overwhelm the courts.

Unless it does involve Child Porn that's a different story.

I would expect that this creep will probably end up with a small fine and a harsh finger shaking.

Personally I think we should bring back stocks in the public square. I'll bring the potatoes. (Don't you mean tomatoes Captain? Right sorry)

[ToewsFan]

I feel bad for his daughter. One thing to spend most of your day stalking innocent women, and trying to take sexually provocative pics/videos of them w/o their consent when you are a loner with no responsibilities.

It saddens me that he appears to have a close relationship with his young daughter. The internet doesn't forget, and sadly she'll probably have to develop thick skin during the Middle school years, as kids can be cruel at that age. God bless her.

[shermanator]

Well, ####, I think I worked with this guy many years ago. Or at least, someone with the same name.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

So, I'm not sure if anyone has noted this yet, but I'm pretty sure this isn't against the law. At least, it's not contra the Criminal Code provision on voyeurism he was charged with, on its face. I didn't know that provision existed, so I haven't read the cases, but it's wholly prefaced on the person being voyeur...ed? being in a context where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Say, your apartment or a bathroom stall. Not the sidewalk. It's aimed at spying on people when they're in private, basically.

The whole thing might get granier when you start talking about looking up women's skirts, but I don't think it's broad enough to cover walking behind a girl on the street and filming her butt. That's just not the behaviour it was drafted to cover.

Incidentally, if it were broad enough, it'd have some interesting results, because that code provision does't distinguish between filming and mere observation. In other words, if he were convicted, it would suggest that you could be charged just for leering at girls in public. Which also seems like an unintended consequence... I suspect that some people would be in favour of such a law, even so.

Does it change when hes distributing them on twitter though?

If the guy just kept the photos for his own personal, 'private use' we likely would never know about it, but once he starts openly distributing photos of people without their permission and of a sexual nature that has to break some laws doesnt it?

[Crackmacs]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Lost in all this are the 17k+ followers who followed this guy on twitter and a large amount undoubtedly have those images stored on their computers. Now I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm completely wrong here when it comes to understanding voyeurism law. But couldn't those people be charged for possession/accessing the material?

A lot of the accounts were similar 'creeper' accounts, not regular people following along. Since this all came to light, I've learned there are big networks of these types of accounts. There's even websites that describe how to do this and not get arrested, it's a really deep and ####ty rabbit hole. People suck.

[CliffFletcher]

As I understand it:

Taking pictures of women's butts as they walk down the street - Not illegal.

Taking pictures up women's skirts - Illegal.

Sharing pictures of womens' butts as they walk down the street - Not illegal.

Sharing pictures up women's skirts - Illegal.

Viewing pictures of women's butts as they walk down the street - Not illegal.

Viewing pictures up women's skirts - Not illegal (unless underage).

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Locke

Does it change when hes distributing them on twitter though?

If the guy just kept the photos for his own personal, 'private use' we likely would never know about it, but once he starts openly distributing photos of people without their permission and of a sexual nature that has to break some laws doesnt it?

That would be 162(4).

(4) Every one commits an offence who, knowing that a recording was obtained by the commission of an offence under subsection (1), prints, copies, publishes, distributes, circulates, sells, advertises or makes available the recording, or has the recording in his or her possession for the purpose of printing, copying, publishing, distributing, circulating, selling or advertising it or making it available.

But he's already charged with breaking subsection (1).

162 (1) Every one commits an offence who, surreptitiously, observes — including by mechanical or electronic means — or makes a visual recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, if

(a) the person is in a place in which a person can reasonably be expected to be nude, to expose his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or to be engaged in explicit sexual activity;

(b) the person is nude, is exposing his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or is engaged in explicit sexual activity, and the observation or recording is done for the purpose of observing or recording a person in such a state or engaged in such an activity; or

(c) the observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose.

So, if he is guilty of subsection (1), and since he distributed it on twitter he would also be guilty of (4). However, so would anyone who saw his videos and distributed them.

(5) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (4)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

There's an exception for those who did it for the public good (I.E. to make this twitter account transparent and show this guys face)

Defence

(6) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the acts that are alleged to constitute the offence serve the public good and do not extend beyond what serves the public good.

There is also 162.1 (1)

162.1 (1) Everyone who knowingly publishes, distributes, transmits, sells, makes available or advertises an intimate image of a person knowing that the person depicted in the image did not give their consent to that conduct, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave their consent to that conduct, is guilty

(a) of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or

(b) of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Definition of intimate image
(2) In this section, intimate image means a visual recording of a person made by any means including a photographic, film or video recording,

(a) in which the person is nude, is exposing his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts or is engaged in explicit sexual activity;

(b) in respect of which, at the time of the recording, there were circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy; and

(c) in respect of which the person depicted retains a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time the offence is committed.

But I don't think I've heard of anything applying to that because of the definition of intimate.

[photon]

I'm sure he thought he was serving the public good.

*badumtss*

[Northendzone]

I am trying to imagine how I would feel if I worked with this guy? or if you were an ex-spouse and he comes to pick up the kids?

what does a guy like this do the next day or two after the intial arrest? does he just call his boss and say, I need a few personal days, back in the office on Monday......

when I heard he lived in Prestwick, I too wondered if I knew him from my days of living there

[CaptainCrunch]

Chances are his desk has been cleaned out.

Usually companies have serious no perverts allowed policies. I can't see how any woman in his workplace wouldn't be wondering if greasy vondirtbag had taken pictures of their lady bits or worse and put in on the interweb.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Chances are his desk has been cleaned out.

Usually companies have serious no perverts allowed policies. I can't see how any woman in his workplace wouldn't be wondering if greasy vondirtbag had taken pictures of their lady bits or worse and put in on the interweb.

He could always drive for UBER.

[troutman]

Granted bail:

http://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/...m-granted-bail

[Otto-matic]

A woman who said she knows Williamson waited hours for the man to appear on CCTV and wept at times.

“I don’t know what’s happening,” said the woman, who wouldn’t identify herself. “He’s not the horrible person he’s being made out to be.”

Williamson is scheduled to appear in court again on July 24

Oh please lady, the guy was caught filming woman and had the audacity to get upskirt footage and he's not that horrible?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Hee hee. "Provincial Court Judge Jim Ogle"