Feeds

back to article Petshop iPad fanboi charged with filming up young model's skirt

A Los Angeles fanboi has been charged (PDF) with using an iPad to take upskirt footage of an underwear model. Julio Mario Medal, 38, stands accused of using his big shiny fondleslab to gaze up 22-year-old Brittanie Weaver's skirt and shoot a film about her naughty bits. Britannie Weaver. Pic: http://brittanieweaver.com …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Facepalm

How stupid are some people? I know Apple users aren't usually the brightest bunch, but an iPad to film this woman? The largest recording device known to man? The only way to have made it more obvious that you were recording was to have brought a film crew to do it.

I should also point out that I don't condone what this dunce has done.

24
10
Silver badge
Holmes

Shoes are the way forward...

Those crazy Japanese with their shoe-cameras:

In 2010

And 2011

It happened in the UK too. A certain...oh, I see a theme here...Ryoji Ogi of North Finchley.

1
0
Boffin

Re: Shoes are the way forward...

I also remember a CSI episode where they catch someone doing this.

0
0
Silver badge
Joke

Re: Shoes are the way forward...

Aw dammit. And I thought I'd invented the shoe camera. (Inspired by the shoe mirrors) back to the drawing board.

I wonder if we're going to see a new apple patent.

"A mobile device used to take pictures or film motion video of somebody without their permission for the purposes of sexual gratification at a later date"

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Not the brightest bunch?

Be careful with generalisations like that, you may actually find there are Apple users who are quite bright. One dickhead does not equate to every user being a dickhead.

Downvotes the troll.

5
17
Anonymous Coward

Re: Not the brightest bunch?

"One dickhead does not equate to every user being a dickhead."

Are you sure about that?

3
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Not the brightest bunch?

I'm absolutely positive. Incidentally, are you calling me a dickhead?

0
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Not the brightest bunch?

No, merely insinuating that you're a dickhead.

13
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Not the brightest bunch?

Ah. The joys of the logically fallacious statement. Check out "fallacy of composition"

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Shoes are the way forward...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/21/pet_shop_incident/

I knew I'd read it before somewhere.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Not the brightest bunch?

Yes it does, but only if there's only one user.

0
0
FAIL

Wel I suppose using a IMAX rig would be only slightly more obvious

0
0
xyz
Bronze badge
Devil

It would have been perfect if....

.... her surname was Beaver and she was bending over to pet her puppies.

5
5
Silver badge
Linux

"secretly videotaping for sexual gratification, unlawful loitering and attempted videotaping for sexual gratification." -- how can he be charged with 'secretly videotaping for sexual gratification' AND 'attempted videotaping for sexual gratification'?

3
1
Anonymous Coward

Two bites at the cherry. If he gets off one charge, the other might stick. Saves two trips to court I'd guess.

1
0
Bronze badge

No tape involved!

2
0
K
Bronze badge
Devil

Whats the problem here..

They are both Animal lovers.. She was "bent over to pet her puppy"

Likewise, he was just petting his Python, whilst admiring her Kitty.

6
3
Silver badge
Trollface

The Rouge Republic of California

Weaver also plans to lobby the government of California to toughen up laws against upskirt filming or other pervy public crimes. She is angry that the charges brought against suspects are only counted as misdemeanours under California law, which does not consider such charges sex crimes.

Yep, we can't get enough control. Better have the guy exiled, branded, required to check in with police regularly and forbidden to stay within 500m of a school for more than an hour forever.

Beria would have had the guy shot after seizing the footage and the woman for his personal amusement. It would only be fair!

7
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: The Rouge Republic of California

Next thing you know it'll be a crime to stare at a womans boosoms when she's wearing a rather revealing top, or not wearing a bra.

And god forbid you decide to read "Juicy" on the back of somebodies trousers.

6
6
Silver badge

Re: The Rouge Republic of California

Next thing you know it'll be a crime to stare at a womans boosoms when she's wearing a rather revealing top, or not wearing a bra.

It already is.

Some days I have to wonder who is more repressed: the Taliban or Americans.

11
2
Silver badge
Joke

Re: The Rouge Republic of California

"Some days I have to wonder who is more repressed: the Taliban or Americans."

Oh, that's easy. Americans of course.

Under Americans, both women and men are repressed: women by the patriarchy, men by feminism.

Under the Taliban, only women are repressed.

5
0

Re: The Rouge Republic of California

Hmmm, erm, isn't the problem that he didn't pay her money for "this crime". I think if this were a shoot for vogue or some magazine and she was being paid to get the upskirt camera shot that's fine and perfectly legal. It's the exact opposite of where you have a date and you take her out for a decent meal, a few drinks and next thing you know you've sank a few hundred dollars and lo and behold you are in a hotel making your boys proud vs sinking a hundred straight down on a ho and just getting into the action. In that scenario the first method of payment (a decent meal and a glass of wine) for sex is legal but the second method of cold hard cash (used later presumably to buy a decent meal and a bottle of vodka) is not.

Why can't we all just get along?

0
6
Bronze badge

That's where you need the google glasses not a fondle slab :p

1
1

Because sticking something that looks at least vaguely like a pair of glasses up a woman's skirt would look more normal?

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Quiet news day? El Reg?

This was reported at length a couple of months ago by yourselves.

You have just regurgitated it, again, for the titillation of readers here.

SO who is more perv.?

8
0
Childcatcher

Re: Quiet news day? El Reg?

I don't normally defend the reporting standards at El Reg, but in this case the previous story / vomit was about the young lass tracking the perp; This regurgitation / story now informs us that he's been charged i.e. there is a bit more new news to report.

If El Reg had published the aforementioned upskirt photos then your criticism would be justified, but in this case there was nothing to cause further distress to the poor lass.

Agreed, it's not much of a story for a tech website, but it's worth it for some of the comments!

1
0
Happy

Re: Quiet news day? El Reg?

> You have just regurgitated it, again, for the titillation of readers here.

Yes, and it worked wonderfully, causing both of us to read the article and then go to the comments section. We went for it hook, line, and sinker. You get titillated, I get titillated, El Reg gets advertising money. It's a win-win situation!

1
0

Re: Quiet news day? El Reg?

The accused has been charged. Whenever that happens, we can expect to see highlights from the original story.

0
0
M7S
Bronze badge
Joke

It's alright according to Eadon

At least he didn't film through any Windows

6
3
Silver badge

Re: It's alright according to Eadon

Oh Christ. Eadon doesn't even need to post in order to start derailing threads...

1
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Bronze badge
Holmes

Déjà vu

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/21/pet_shop_incident/

0
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Anonymous Coward

Am I the only one.....

...that knows a 22 year old is in no way classed as young these days, in fact she's probably classed in the "knocking on a bit" category.

1
1
Bronze badge

Re: Am I the only one.....

Sorry, we all stand corrected, Jimmy!

2
0

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Silver badge

Unofficial CCTV

The same state allows stores to install cameras, including hidden cameras, in changing rooms

It also allows employers to put cameras in staff toilets to catch them taking drugs http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/27/business/fi-23822

3
1
Stop

Re: Unofficial CCTV

The story you've linked to states that under Californian privacy law it's illegal to put cameras in rest rooms.

Pretty poor that the state seems to allow contract to overrule law though!

Any evidence for allowing hidden cameras in changing rooms?

0
0
Bronze badge
Trollface

Re: Unofficial CCTV

Plenty! Just have a flcik through my home movie collection!

1
0

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Bronze badge

So, she has no problems with people taking photos of her in underwear someone else has provided, she just doesn't like it when someone takes a photo of her in her own stained and holey scrungies.

1
7
Facepalm

Yep.

Strangely enough, one is consensual the other is not. Funny how she objects to the non consensual one isn't it.

It is also possible for a stripper to object to being spied upon at home, and a prostitute to be raped.

11
1

Yep

You've posted pretty much what I was going to.. So, Upvoted..

The important issue here is consent. It may be that she spends her days wearing very little apart from the tiniest examples of underwear (or even nothing), but the fact is if she does that professionally, she consents to those photographers taking photos. She presumably gets paid as well.

What she has not consented to is having a creep follow her round taking photos of her undies on his iPad.

1
0
Flame

Well, the expression on her face

did make it seem like she was pretty steamed up about it.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Look again...

A terry pratchett quote comes to mind from reaper man if I remember correctly...

"thats not a dog, and she might not technically be a woman..."

"Ook?!"

Having dated someone of the model persuasion, so long as its mammalian its fine.. A fact that the photographers are all too happy about, I'm thinking its a case of friar tuck here.. the kinda girl Gene Hunt warned you about..

0
0
Bronze badge
Facepalm

I'm sure it's more likely to be about the act and the possibility of being caught but Jesus wept surely it's easier to just go and pick up a Gratton catalog ( or whatever the local version is called ) if you fancy a quick oogle at a women arse? That's before we even get to the to whole "How big a percentage of the internet is grumble-flick sites now?" debate!

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Commenters on here are evidently highly knowledgable about the female of the species...

but for those still having difficulty, its:

one woman;

many women.

Sheesh.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Or just use Google pic search with safe search turned off!

0
0
Bronze badge

More Cowbell...ummm Laws, yeah that's it

I am probably not going too far out on a limb by suggesting that there are already laws on the books about this sort of behavior. Mirrors on the shoes goes back ages. Adding some batteries and better low light performance doesn't really need a revamp of existing laws.

Every time there is a widely publicized crime, somebody is going to bellyache that we need new or stronger laws. What a load of tripe. It is already illegal to hurt and kill people (Governments exempted, of course). Taking a person's stuff or cash without their permission is already verboten (same exemptions). And trying to have a peek up some woman's skirt has to be in the shame-on-you ordinances somewhere. Just enforcing the laws already on the books will usually apply justice in the proper amount. Except for sneaking a camcorder into a movie theatre. 20 years is really too light a punishment!

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.