Town claims that hidden cameras pointed into bathroom stalls is not violation of privacy

[Ban Hammer 13,590]

LUDINGTON, MI — Startling reports of government surveillance inside public bathrooms has been revealed through the use of hidden cameras. Now attorneys and city managers grapple over the definition of “reasonable expectation of privacy,” and whether a person has it while standing at a urinal, washing their face in a mirror, or even sitting on a toilet.

The independent news blog called the Ludington Torch helped break the story by identifying fourteen cameras in Ludington public restrooms. Twelve were hidden cameras.

Tom Rotta, who posted the story on the Torch, exposed cameras that were planted inside air ducts and inside specially-designed smoke detectors that had built in cameras. These cameras, once identified, were in position to look down inside the bathroom stalls, and effectively “watch you poo,” as Rotta called it on the blog.

Rotta even went as far as to track down the receipts for the cameras through the Ludington Town Maintenance Department. It turns out, at least some of the cameras were purchased by the town as early as August 2000. When Fox 17 looked into it, they found that the cameras had been in use as far back as the late 1990s.

Rotta appealed to the Town Council to honor his FOIA request, which he says the council has violated at will. He stated before the council in an August 26 meeting:

“In the Michigan Penal Code, section 750.539(J) it says: ‘A person shall not… Surveil, Photograph, or otherwise capture or record another individual… under circumstances in which the individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.’ As far as definitions, ‘person’ can refer to a body corporate, such as the City of Ludington, and ‘reasonable expectation of privacy‘ has historically covered bathrooms, even public bathrooms. When one steps up to a urinal, or one sits on a toilet, he expects to do so with privacy, and should not be able to look up and see a recording camera pointed at his private parts. This is a felony violation.”

Rotta investigated the women’s restrooms as well, and found cameras above the stalls there too. He says his only guess as to why they are there is for “lewd and lascivious purposes.”

The Ludington Police Department says they’ve only looked at the video twice in the past 12 years, and another when Rotta filed for a copy. Not only is there no way to verify that, Rotta says he’s worried the videos are being sold.

According to Fox 17, Rotta says he’s considering a class action lawsuit against the City of Ludington for invasion of privacy.

http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/town-claims-that-hidden-cameras-pointed-into-bathroom-stalls-is-not-violation-of-privacy/

[Harsh_77 718]

They have only looked at it twice in 12 years.... what a waste of tax dollars.

[newacct 688]

"Rotta says he’s worried the videos are being sold."

As Colbert would say, "Selling bathroom videos is just a creative way to raise revenues in times of budget cuts. We should follow in their lead and put cameras in all public bathrooms in this country, and put up signs that say, Smile, you're on camera, and helping to reduce the deficit."

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I'm going to go there and rub one out for the camera.

[Karee 4,191]

I'm going to go there and rub one out for the camera.

[TBoneTX 46,190]

Perhaps someone will sue the... uh, ####### out of the city.