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.
  1. TechnicianJack
    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.

    1. FartingHippo
      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. TechnicianJack
        Boffin

        Re: Shoes are the way forward...

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

        1. wowfood
          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. Anonymous Coward
        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.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Not the brightest bunch?

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

        Are you sure about that?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Not the brightest bunch?

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

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Not the brightest bunch?

            No, merely insinuating that you're a dickhead.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Not the brightest bunch?

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

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Not the brightest bunch?

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

    3. Private Citizen.AU
      FAIL

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

  2. xyz
    Devil

    It would have been perfect if....

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

  3. Miek
    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'?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      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.

    2. Efros

      No tape involved!

  4. K Silver 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.

  5. Destroy All Monsters 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!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      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.

      1. ecofeco 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.

        1. Steven Roper
          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.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      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?

  6. The_Regulator

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

    1. Stuart Castle

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

  7. Anonymous Coward
    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.?

    1. BenDwire
      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!

    2. Blain Hamon
      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!

    3. Maryland, USA

      Re: Quiet news day? El Reg?

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

  8. M7S
    Joke

    It's alright according to Eadon

    At least he didn't film through any Windows

    1. Steven Roper

      Re: It's alright according to Eadon

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

  9. This post has been deleted by its author

  10. vagabondo
    Holmes

    Déjà vu

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

  11. This post has been deleted by its author

  12. Anonymous Coward
    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. Shades

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

      Sorry, we all stand corrected, Jimmy!

  13. This post has been deleted by a moderator

  14. Yet Another Anonymous coward 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

    1. edge_e
      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?

      1. Jediben
        Trollface

        Re: Unofficial CCTV

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

  15. This post has been deleted by a moderator

  16. MrDamage

    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. John Bailey
      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.

      1. Stuart Castle

        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.

      2. Glenn Charles
        Flame

        Well, the expression on her face

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

  17. Anonymous Coward
    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..

  18. Amorous Cowherder
    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!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      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.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

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

  19. MachDiamond Silver 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!

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019