"For four-fifths of our history, our planet was populated by pond scum." - J. W. Schopf
***
From today's ST:
'More upskirt voyeurs' on the prowl
Camera phones make it easier to commit offences; more cases cropping up: Lawyers
AS CAMERA and video functions on mobile phones become more commonplace, so too have the cases of those caught for shooting upskirt videos and pictures.
These images are generally shot with cameras pointed directly up women's skirts. Those caught taking such images may face up to a year's jail and a fine for insulting the modesty of women.
Lawyers and psychiatrists who spoke to The Straits Times said the number is likely to have more than doubled from the 50 cases in 2006.
According to police figures, there were 28 cases of people committing upskirt offences out of the 161 cases that involved insulting the modesty of women in 2004. The proportion went up to 50 out of 172 cases in 2006.
In 2008 and last year, there were about 350 cases that involved insulting the modesty of women. However, the police said they no longer provide a breakdown of the figures for upskirt offences among the cases. No reason was given.
Still, lawyers said more of these gadget-savvy peeping Toms are prowling about and getting caught.
Lawyer Rajan Supramaniam, who handles such cases, said: 'From about four cases a month in the courts in 2006, now it's common to have about eight to nine such offences in the same period.'
Another lawyer, Mr Christopher Bridges, said he would not be surprised if the number exceeds 100 cases this year.
'At the district courts, lawyers talk among themselves and upskirt offences seem to be popping up regularly on a weekly basis in these conversations,' he said.
As for the increase in such cases, lawyer Leonard Loo said the availability of small, easily concealed camera phones is one key reason.
'I think it's much easier and less suspicious to steal a peek with a camera phone than to try to catch a woman in a state of undress in a toilet,' he said.
Other lawyers said it could also be due to more awareness about such behaviour.
'There has been a lot of publicity on such crimes, so women are on the alert when a stranger comes too close,' said lawyer Winnifred Gomez.
Psychiatrist Nelson Lee, who did not see any such voyeurs before 2006, said he is now consulted by about 10 such patients a year.
Like him, psychiatrist Brian Yeo and psychologist Daniel Koh said there was no difference between the peeping Toms of the past and the present-day digital voyeurs.
'The only difference is that technology has opened up more opportunities for a whole group of voyeurs. Putting cameras on mobile phones allows for easy filming and playback to relive the moment over and over again,' said Mr Koh.
However, repeated viewing may well lead them down a slippery slope to danger.
'Like all addictions, tolerance develops over time and images obtained online may no longer provide the same level of excitement. Then the person needs something stronger to get the same gratification and he proceeds to go out and get his own images,' Dr Lee said.
My favourite line here is:
"The police said they no longer provide a breakdown of the figures for upskirt offences among the cases. No reason was given"
Of course, this article elides the issue of downblouses.