A Word Please

Do we have a reasonable expectation of privacy? And, if so, what exactly does that mean?

Those of us who tend to be camera shy might still be able to slip away from the crazy friend with the camera phone. But we can’t escape those same camera phones held by the creepy guy two tables away at the restaurant or the MySpace addict at the party who posts everything on her page. Like it or not, our mug shots could end up just about anywhere.

And what about the cameras that are appearing on every traffic light and are stuck to the side of every business? And the cameras that follow you around Target and Wal-Mart? In an average day, you could star in any number of videos.

I have to admit that I don’t normally give this much thought. The intrusion of cameras into our everyday lives has been a subtle, though steady, occurrence. For the most part, we don’t see them. Out of sight, out of mind. We do still have our privacy. Right?

Then I recently shopped at a store that shall remain nameless. (Can they sue me for talking about them, while they invade my privacy? I don’t know.) I needed to try a few things on. As I walked into the dressing room area, I noticed a small plaque on the wall with even smaller writing. I’m a reader. I read everything. So I stopped and read the plaque.

This fine print told me that their dressing rooms are monitored by video cameras, with a person viewing at all times. This gave me pause. Honestly, pause is not nearly strong enough. I was furious. Video cameras and people watching me undress? Seriously? How did this become okay?

I’ve adapted to cameras watching me cross intersections and following me around stores. However, the two places I always assumed fell under the ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ rule are dressing rooms and bathrooms. If cameras are now filming my striptease, are they also watching to see whether I wash my hands after I pee?

This is not okay with me. I’m not hung up about nudity. Nor am I hung up about my body. But if I am going to strip for someone, I want to choose who that someone is. I also want to be told outright, not discover it through fine print.

A small plaque with smaller writing that most people walk right by is not acceptable. When does reasonable expectation of privacy cross the line into blatant intrusion of privacy? If all it takes to monitor someone’s private moments is small print stuck in an obscure spot, then privacy has become nothing more than an illusion.

According to an article in the May edition of Reason magazine, the New Orleans police and prosecutors charge their city’s prostitutes as sex offenders. This, in itself, baffles me. The term “sex offenders” has lost its edge. It can be a rapist, it can apparently be a prostitute, or it can be a guy who gets drunk and pees in a public park. Why would we want to lump all these crimes under one heading?

This article goes on to state that, of 863 people on New Orleans’ sex offender list, 483 were charged under this fairly recent prostitution law. These “sex offenders” were engaging in consensual (albeit, paid) sex. These women now have to register as sex offenders, their licenses are stamped with the sex offender status, and they must report their status to all their neighbors and future employers.

Shouldn’t a sex offender be someone we need to worry about? Someone dangerous? We may not all agree with prostitution as a profession but most of us do agree that prostitutes are not in the same league as a rapist or child molester.

What truly bothered me about this article was the absence of the prostitutes’ customers on the sex offender list. If the prostitute is a sex offender, then, by default, shouldn’t her (or his) customer be as well? They are both consenting in the act. They are both well aware of what they are doing. Without the customers, there would be no prostitute. Yet, only the prostitute pays the price with the sex offender stamp.

Furthermore, once we label these prostitutes with the general sex offender stamp, they cannot get a legitimate job anywhere. Who wants to hire a registered sex offender? No one stops and looks into the realities of the “crime”. Prospective employers simply look at that label and there is no way they are going to hire that person. We claim to want to stop prostitution, yet this very law forces these women (and men) to continue in the profession by taking away any reasonable and legal choices.

The March/April issue of Mother Jones has a short list of weird liquor laws. I got a chuckle from a few and thought I’d share them with you.

Alaska: No alcohol sales between 5 a.m. and 8 a.m.
Evidently, that 3 hour break is when you’re supposed to eat breakfast and sober up before starting over.

Florida: Boozing may be prohibited during hurricanes.
I live in Florida. People here have hurricane parties and I’m pretty sure they are not alcohol-free.

Georgia: Public drunkenness is illegal, but drinking in public is fine.
Hmm…

Oklahoma: Stores must sell alcoholic drinks at room temperature.
Does this mean there is no such thing as a frozen pina colada in Oklahoma?

South Carolina: No liquor sold on Election Day.
If ever there was a day that deserved alcohol, this is the one.