I think you remembered it wrong. There would be absolutely no way to enforce that.

So, anyone sitting down on the train is "going out of their way" to get a better vantage point of the people around them just by sitting down (basically the same viewing level as waist-level)? People standing on trains / buses use their smartphones at waist level for different purposes all the time. People sitting on…

This guy wasn't reaching his phone up anyone's skirt, he was standing on the train holding his phone at waist level: http://www.eagletribune.com/latestnews/x93…

He did neither; he was standing on the train holding the camera at waist level. Something countless commuters do every single day http://www.eagletribune.com/latestnews/x93…

That only applies if they are using a high-powered lens to do so. If you are standing on the street taking a picture of someone's house with a normal lens, and their bedroom curtain happens to be open a bit and you can see them nude inside, it is perfectly legal to take that photo (at least in the states who's laws I…

He didn't go out of his way, he was standing and holding the camera at waist level, as so many bus/train commuters do every single day: http://www.eagletribune.com/latestnews/x93…

Not your mistake - jezebel's (typical) misleading headline.

This guy is a total creep, to be sure.

Oh, he's a creep for sure - and what he is doing is unacceptable in my book. But everyone here is flying off the handle assuming this guy is crawling on the ground cramming his phone up women's skirts, which is not the case at all.

As to your question - if he was sitting across from her, and could see up her skirt from…

He was holding his phone/camera at waist level while standing. As usual, jezebel refuses to present all of the facts.

According to witnesses, he was standing and holding his phone at waist level. Hardly going out of his way.

He's not suing, he is defending himself against charges (well, his lawyers are defending him). As usual, the headline is misleading.

"Meanwhile, New Zealand police are like *shrug!* we can't do anything about it because we don't have any evidence!" - nice way of making it sound like they *shrugged* the whole thing off and are doing nothing.

Keep in mind, this is jezebel - where (anti-male) bias rules and actual research is non-existent. http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/05/wor…

There is (and has been) an ongoing investigation, and since no formal charges have been filed (yet), no evidence has been found (yet). So, you think the best solution is to operate around or outside of the law? Do you think any judge or grand jury would say, "Well, there's no evidence here, but let's use the…

Right - the police in this case have been investigating and are unable to produce any admissible evidence (the writer makes it seem like the police don't give a shit and aren't doing anything because of her bias, but then there's this: http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/05/wor… ). So, there's the confessions, there's the…

Oh yeah - duh.. :^)

The point is, there are many, many valid reasons that actual evidence of a crime is needed to prosecute someone for it. Just because a person who falsely confesses to a crime that never happened may be diagnosed with mental illness does not mean it should be ok to prosecute anyone who confesses to a crime of which…

I really want to get a ceramic knife, but they are so F-ing expensive.

So what if a mentally ill person, who is a bit out of touch with reality, "confesses" to a crime that never happened? Should they be prosecuted, found guilty, and thrown in jail?