Young model ruthlessly fingers upskirt iPad petshop pervert A 22-year-old model used LinkedIn to track down an iPad perv who used the fruity fondleslab to film some upskirt footage of her as she visited a Los Angeles pet shop. Britannie Weaver. Pic: http://brittanieweaver.com Britannie Weaver According to the New York Daily News, San Diego native Brittanie Weaver (pictured) nipped …
"He could have got better footage on a beach."
He could have gotten much better footage by buying some porn with women who were, actually, you know, *consenting* to have their privates filmed. This is just creepy pervy. Calling him an idiot for taking his snaps in suboptimal conditions is missing the point by a gazillion miles
I guess it's the "forbidden fruit" (not an Apple pun) factor. The difference between watching concensual porn and illicitly doing the creepy stalk-and-upskirt-snap thing is the same between having sex in your bedroom with the lights off versus a little hanky panky in a public or semi-public place.
The cops should grab this guy and make him clean up trash along about 10 miles of freeway in LA.
"the skirts were very short to begin with"
Upskirt pics are entirely feasible even with knee-length skirts. I was riding an escalator and got the chance to see how it is done - the guy ahead of me reached down and forward to get his phone under the skirt of the woman in front of him. Nobody would have been the wiser if he hadn't been right in front of me doing it.
And in the context of teenaged schoolboys ogling bits of young female teachers - we had one at my secondary school, back in about 1979. She was a student teacher and she had the interesting habit of wearing low-neck sweaters. This was, of course, made more interesting by her habit of leaning forward to see what was going on, thus revealing all to anyone in front of her...
From Red Dwarf:
"He's the one who taught me to look up girls skirts by putting mirrors on my toecaps"
-Dave Lister
From Iain M. Banks:
"They want to own the light?"
Actually, the Banks quote is from the Culture, amazed that museums had 'No Photography' rules. New Scientist reported on a proposed system a few years back, whereby a mechanism would selectively dazzle cameras... I can't remember how it recognised them, but I think it had something to do with sensors being very absorbent of light.
As title.
Jeez, the guy must have been deperate, or needing medical attention, ...............or this is another 'publicity' effort for manakins.
Like most folk know - it's out there for free without a risk of getting 'caught' by someone 'clocking an ID badge' and making yourself 'known on LinkedIn' with a photograph.
Sure this isn't Friday?
She did indeed do better than the police which in itself is worrying as they would have started with his name, CCTV footage and several eyewitnesses.
I wasn't belittling the fact she found him when the police clearly couldn't be arsed, only the fact that the minimal effort required was deemed newsworthy.
Unless all of this is a cunning publicity stunt to drive up the model's profile?
And for some reason, her website lists more detail specifications about her than I see in most server specs...
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
It always amazes me when someone feels the need to explain what should be obvious and initially I was inclined to believe that this was another case. However given the interogation mark I gave the write the benefit of the doubt and read it in a different way. Maybe he/she was asking, "Is this the best you can come up with?" After all the spoonerism was begging to be made and didn't involve any originality.
This post has been deleted by its author
Looking at the photo, isn't it weird that at both sides of the desk the personnel is crouching down or leaning over? Maybe they were all looking for escaped flees from a broken circus. Is the guy sitting down not staring at the bottoms of his colleague a bit too eagerly? Just saying, this shop is full of perverts. Only a firm Playmobil re-enactment might solve the crime.
Thinking of perves and pet-shops, it's been a long time since I watched Deuce Bigalow Male Gigolo, though the sentiments in the movie are sweeter and more respectful than the title suggests.
Every time the 'hero' goes to the aquarium shop, he asks the woman behind the counter for some sea snails from the bottom of the tank, a procedure that invariably soaks her blouse.
Hmm, I see it's been slated on Rotten Tomatoes... oh well, I found it funny when I was a student.
...then she's probably doing the wrong kind of modelling.
Saying that: I am surprised she didn't just give the idiot a slap and be done with it. It seems a pretty sad way to spend your free time; guess the risk of being caught is probably his main motivation.
While he was violating her privacy, it is not really abuse or even exploitation...
I wonder, IF someone films you in secret, and you NEVER find out about it? does it actually harm you in any way? (I am not disputing the right to privacy when you have the expectation of privacy, i.e. in your own bedroom, in a bathroom etc...)
But Think about the number of times you've been filmed by CCTV... I am sure that at some time you did something embarrassing... do you feel violated then?
What if your burger had horse meat in it instead of beef, and you never knew?
What if your McFlurry had 5cc's of McJizzy, and you didn't notice?
What if someone stole £10 from your bank account, but you didn't miss it?
Do these cease to be crimes just because you didn't know? I suppose not knowing you're a victim might make it better as you don't have something to cope with, but this doesn't stop it being a crime, even if you don't understand this, she did know - she caught him in the act, and he was very obviously stalking her, she was abused and exploited.
> What if your burger had horse meat in it instead of beef, and you never knew?
There is a subtle difference here.
The harm done to the victim is ostensibly embarrassment.
If you don't know that the photo was taken, then the harm is not inflicted.
If, on the other hand, this guy posted the pictures on the Internet and identified the victim, then there is a case to be made again of embarassment, possibly defamation etc.
Just because you don't like something doesn't necessarily mean that there should be a law against it.
> Upskirt videos are purposed as pornography, and produced without permission of the subject.
Pornography is not illegal as far as I know, so this is largely irrelevent.
Photography of people in public places, apart from some exceptions, is also perfectly legal.
I'm not saying that what this guy was right or moral, but you have to make a distinction between what should be illegal because it causes real tangible harm, and that which you personally don't like.
You could argue that because you don't like something, it should therefore be illegal, but that is a difficult line to walk.
It's a difficult one. Using "intent" as a decider for whether or not something should be illegal is very dangerous ground indeed, particularly because it is so hard to define.
If someone was "turned on" sexually by a crowd scene, does that make it illegal from them photographing crowds in the street? How about someone that is into bestiality? Are farm scenes out for them also?
How about a more down-to-earth example? Beach photos of semi-naked individuals. Well aparently that would be OK as long as you were taking promo photos for a magazine, but not for jerking off to at home.
>Photography of people in public places, apart from some exceptions, is also perfectly legal.
That is quite true however I think you'll find that voyeuristic upskirt shots are illegal. If a woman were to sit on a bench with legs spread for all to see then you could argue that there was no invasion of privacy as the female had put her parts on public display. Taking sneaky upskirt shots are not afforded the same interpretation. Up someone's skirt is not the same as out in public
One of the points taken into consideration is the purpose for which the snaps were taken so let's get back to perfectly legal. It is perfectly legal to take photographs of fully clothed children playing in a public park unless the purpose of taking those snaps is for sexual gratification. It might be difficult to prove in the case of the playground photographer that the reason was such but in the case of upskirt/downblouse shots there is no doubt.
@No, I will not fix your computer
>she caught him in the act, and he was very obviously stalking her, she was abused and exploited.
She was allegedly abused there is no evidence of her being exploited, eg the photos being sold or published, so dim your flame.
Completely ignoring the abuse/exploitation of women's bodies angle to discuss the inadequacies of the perp's "skills" as a voyeur.
What really makes that aspect so appealing is the irony that there was probably a trained monkey in that store that could have done a 'better' job.
...I have never managed to even take a photo of a whiteboard with my iPad without (a) nearly dropping it, (b) getting a totally blurred or dark image, or (c) accidentally swapping to some other app at the last second. This guy must put in the hours practising that 'edge' grip. Hats off to him.
The article does not say she had his full name.
The ID badge might have only had his first name on it, not his full name. This is not uncommon when an ID badge is to identify you to the public rather than some internal building security.
I'm guessing, from the fact she used LinkedIn to find him that she used his first name and the company he worked for to narrow down the subjects. If she had his full name then she would probably have used Facebook/Twitter to track him down.
... he could have been facing jail time...
Sexual Offences Act 2003 - Paragraph 67
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/67
I spent 6 months in prison (attacked in a bar, defended myself too strenuously according to the law). At one point there was young lad on the same wing as me. It turned out he was inside for putting a mirror on the frame of a shopping trolley and wheeling it around the supermarket to look up ladies skirts. When the regular lags discovered this they beat him to a pulp and he had to be moved to the protection wing.
This post has been deleted by its author
Poor little things have flattened faces
Wasn't that the case with pekinese dogs? I've always wondered if giving them a deep food bowl would be deemed cruel (unless they have really long tongues to compensate, which conjures images related to this story, but not of a nature I'm willing to explore right now).
The adventures of a cavalier King Charles spaniel sound more exciting than the life and times of a cautious King Charles spaniel, so yeah, go for it.
Ah sod it... "Samantha has been assisting academics who are researching impediments to the promotion of women in the workplace. The researchers want no payment for their time; for them it is reward enough to see her crack up through the glass ceiling"
>The adventures of a cavalier King Charles spaniel sound more exciting than the life and times of a cautious King Charles spaniel
I think you'll find the opposite of a cavalier king charles spaniel is a roundheaded parliamentarian spaniel which would fit a description of John Prescott if only he didn't look like a wrinkled bulldog.
her mutt (a "Cavalier King Charles Spaniel"...)
As far as I know, "mutt" is the American equivalent of "mongrel", which it can't have been if it was a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel.
Journalists on the British side of the Atlantic seem increasingly to regard "mutt" as a humorous word for "dog". Even if I'm wrong about the word's true meaning, the forced jocularity is utterly toe-curling. The same is true of "pooch".
This post has been deleted by its author
Yes because posting anonymously on an internet forum to aggressively insult a reasonably wide range of people with vulgar language based on your own personal opinion is the mark of a truly remarkable individual whose lofty heights of morality we should all aspire too.
Wait a moment, I’m sure I have a tiny violin in here somewhere to quell your pseudo-rage.
I have no vested interest in this either way, I just can't resist the opportunity to mock such a stupidly pointless post.
Obviously you're new here, so let me begin by greeting you "Borag Thungg, Earthlet"
You see, some of are not even human and quite possibly may already sell upskirts of our wives, not daughters though, as techies we hardly procreate as it's not the same as in the movies. Of course by movies I actually mean whichever tube we are watching. As for scumbags, we are hardly on par with Jabba the Hutt - speaking of Jabba, how's your momma?
Since the dawn of civilisation men have been trying to look at the lady garden - it's not big and it's not clever (no not your momma, actually that's factually incorrect) and is defiantly a bit creepy (yes, your momma again) Essentially the way in which you express your opinion is the same as trying to take a creep shot with an ipad. Retarded, but fun to take the piss out of (again - your momma ) - except the piss part LOL
As I understand it, and IANAL, the law (Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, 2004) says she should have an expectation of privacy in the lines of she should not expect someone to be filming/photoing her privates when she has not dressed to reveal them. Ok, seems the guy is pretty much toast, except she needs to prove he was taking her pic at the time.
Without the proof of the crime all she has is her word against his. The CCTV still just seems to show him crouched down, he could be taking a picture of her dog rather than her muffin for all the still shows, if he even is taking a pic. On the other hand, he has plenty of ammo for a libel case if the cops don't find the pic, and if he does get charged and sent to court his lawyer's first question to her will probably be "So, Miss Weaver, as a model have you ever posed nude or for lingerie shoots?" The portfolio on her website has plenty of partially dressed, underwear and swimwear shots. "So, Miss Weaver, you're quite used to the idea of making money from your body, so now you've decided to make some by tarring my client's reputation?" Doesn't matter if her lawyer moves to strike, the jury is left with the idea this woman would be quite happy to sell pics of her privates and probably has already. Next question "Does your career need a boost, and did you think that groundlessly accusing my client of this shocking crime was a good way to get some publicity?".... He may be a perv, but unless he literally gets caught with the smoking camera it would be very hard to prove, and I suspect Miss Weaver would get a lot more sympathy if she wasn't a model.
Like someone else said- This idiot can find upskirt porn online for free without risking being knocked over the head with a brick weighted purse by an offended victim of his pervertiveness. And with an iPad? Really? Yes, I'd say he's an IDIOT. A perverted idiot, at that. Should be abundantly clear to a woman that a man with an iPad in view following her around, is trying to get point of view pictures of a perverted nature.
Yesterday during a support call with a young lady I gave up trying to explain to her how to plug in a new server we'd sent them. So I asked if she had an iphone, and suggested we have a facetime call so I could explain to her what she was looking at. Brilliant idea, saved loads of time. But totally unexpectedly, when she was getting down and dirty on the floor trying to plug the network cable into the back of it, she placed the iphone on the floor pointing straight down her cleavage, much to the amusement of us in the office. She had no idea she'd done that. No, she wasn't able to place the iDevice in a way such that it pointed up her skirt and no, I i didn't ask.
The server is quite nice. An HP Microserver with 2 x 1000Gb Hard disks and running SME server, a linux distro aimed at small offices with file sharing and email requirements. This OS tends to have a better fit for smaller businesses we service, where they need reliability, low maintenance and low cost more than the microsoft solution (pretty much the opposite). This particular server is only going to be used as an online backup at a different site, using rsync from their main file server. Despite being small, this little server even has ILO support.
One person with mental issues was at this library and he was addicted to Gillian anderson and while looking at rated G pictures he would start drooling non stop for her and the librarians refused to kick him out after printing 100 pictures of the actress.
It is people like these who have no impulse control. Chemical castration should be in order for them.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
