Washington, DC

Photo by PoPville flickr user Eric P.

“Dear PoPville,

Apparently, some creep has been filming women on the Metro and posting the videos on a porn site. This seems like the sort of thing that people in the PoPville community (and, the larger DC community) probably ought to know about; but, I don’t have any information (or any way to get information) about the person doing it. I know there have been previous posts in the forums (under Public Safety) about creeps photographic women in the Metro system.

The link is to the profile page of the guy (at least, I assume it’s a guy since the profile claims it is) who posted the videos. XHamster, in case you haven’t heard of it, is basically a YouTube clone for porn. So, the content on the site is posted by users. I ran across one of these videos when it popped up in a totally unrelated search; and, I probably wouldn’t have even noticed it were it not for the distinctive colors of Metro seats. I watched enough to confirm that it definitely was Metro, not some other similar appearing system – the map is a dead giveaway; and, it showed the Silver Line, meaning that the video is recent – and clicked through to the user who posted it. I figured either it was posted by the person who took the video or someone who found it elsewhere online. If the latter, there’s not so much that could be done; but, as it turns out, this person has like a dozen videos that are easily identifiable as filmed on Metro trains and, I think, none from anywhere else. So, this guy is probably the person who filmed them.

Anyway, they appear to be smartphone videos of young women – usually wearing shorts or skirts – who are unaware that they are being filmed, often taken from low angle. Not technically explicit – and, due to the obnoxious rulings earlier this fall in Texas and DC, almost certainly not illegal, unfortunately – but, certainly creepy. To be clear, I have no fundamental issue with pornography (obviously); but, that’s premised on the consent of anyone being filmed, which clearly seems to be lacking here.”

Comments (53)

  1. What a disgusting pig, and how horribly invasive and upsetting for those women. I can’t believe that in 2014 the point really still needs to be made that random women going about their day are not just there to be wank fodder for any creep who happens by.

  2. LOL

    “I ran across one of these videos when it popped up in a totally unrelated search.”

  3. Right? This guy should get a popville tshirt for that.

  4. Reminds me of the old emergency room joke, “I fell on it!”

  5. Just as likely that a lady PoP’villager sent this in. Females are somewhere around ~45% of all online porn viewers and are the fastest growing market segment.

  6. maybe so, but they rarely refer to themselves as “females.”

  7. Huh? I don’t understand the point of your post.
    Is “female” not proper nomenclature? Is that word somehow offensive?

  8. It’s not the first time I’ve heard women get upset by it. I used to say it as a matter of technicality, but after getting “corrected” (even though my usage was actually correct) I’ve just stopped to avoid future headaches.

  9. I just read the Buzzfeed article from October on the misuse of the word “female.” I feel dumber for having read it. The word “male” is used all the time, as well, especially when in the context of scientific texts and statistics. I guess both words would be offensive?
    Anyways, it might be the epitome of first world problems. And I’m a proud Feminist (oops – do we need to change that word?)

  10. “Female” gives off a clinical, scientific vibe, which can detract from a person’s humanity in a way that “woman” doesn’t. It comes across as particularly objectifying in a thread about treating women as sexual objects (surreptitiously taping certain body parts as detached from the person to whom they belong).

  11. Anon OP – just saw your reply above mine, so let me add: there is a significant power differential between men and women in the US, but this you know as a self-proclaimed feminist. “Male” is not seen as offensive to men much in the same way that the word “slut” does not have the same shaming connotation for men as for women.
    PS. I would avoid referencing Buzzfeed for anything but cute bunny pictures.

  12. He was there for an unrelated article on seat design for subways and then WHOA MAMA there’s porno on this site! LOL….

  13. I thought the guy was saying he was on the XHamster site to begin with and searching for something else, and the Metro footage was one of the results.

  14. I think the main problem is that the videos are being posted to a porn site, but filming people without consent is what i.e. news programs do all the time. When they film a protest, or a house burning i.e.

  15. Surely you don’t mean to equate being filmed as part of news background as being an equivalent problem with some creep trying to film up a woman’s skirt then posting the video online?

  16. It’s not the same, but it’s hard to draw a firm line. Where’s the outrage when a place like TMZ does it to a celebrity getting out of a limo?

  17. How do you see this as a difficult line to draw? Yes, people can photograph you walking down the street. That hardly equates to someone attempting upskirt photography for the purpose of posting it to a porn site. And yes, I do remember people complaining about TMZ going too far with that, but only once they starting picking on women who were less easy to dismiss as “deserving” it-Emma Watson vs. Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears.

  18. You mean when a celeb is getting out of a limo knowing there is a curbside full of photogs waiting? Not a good analogy at all to a random citizen having someone put a camera up their skirt while they’re just trying to get home from work.

  19. I’m not going to click on that link. I guess I was being a bit naïve thinking they were just pictures of women showing some skin. I don’t want to think about how creepy a person can get, but if it’s like some people are saying here – looking up their skirts, that’s just wrong and clearly different.

  20. The post only says that the videos are of women wearing shorts or skirts, same thing you can see on news videos and others. Maybe if it was more explicit in the description, we can tell that there is a difference.

  21. They are trying to get shots up the skirts and shorts of women or shots going down their shirts, praying for a wardrobe malfunction, because women aren’t people, they are sex objects.

  22. I think this sucks for the people involved. I haven’t clicked to look, but we’re their faces in the videos?

    While I don’t directly condone it, the people are in public and have no expectation of privacy. I wouldn’t do it but I was told as a kid: “Don’t do, wear, or say anything you won’t own if you end up on national tv.” My dad (and mom) talking about being in public.

  23. Yikes…maybe more of a warning BEFORE the link…don’t want that site on my history! pretty messed up story…but how did that randomly appear on a search?!?! that is even more concerning that something like that would truly appear on some random search?!?

  24. It’s clearly labeled NSFW. Not sure what else you’d want.

  25. Evidently you are good with acronyms “B”. shame on me… I still have no idea what NSFW truly means. Not Sure F’ing What it means quite frankly…

  26. Acronymics Anonymous

    Not Safe For Work


  28. NSFW = Not Safe For Work.
    You really hadn’t heard this one before??

  29. No, Seriously, I haven’t. The world is flooded with acronyms, I wish I was with it.

  30. Sorry I don’t list my full name while posting an anonymous comment. Also, the OP (Original Poster) was trying to perform some level of public service by making people aware of this. In doing so he provided the link with a well known acronym to let people know it’s not work appropriate content.

    Having done that, you reply to this person’s well-intentioned deed by:
    (1) Being rude because there was porn on the link to the porn site that was clearly labeled as having content in poor taste.
    (2) Questioning this person’s character. I’m sure you’ve never accidentally come across adult material on the internet…..oh wait…… you literally just did.
    (3) Somehow making this about yourself.

  31. +1 LOL!!!!!

  32. I think the clue not to click was that it said porn site right before the link. No need to understand NSFW when it clearly says it’s a porn site.

  33. Plus the national debt.

  34. Actually a court in DC recently said this was ok. I think the guy was filming up women’s skirts at the Lincoln memorial. Strangely the judge was a woman. Not that a man should be ok with it.

  35. Note that, as in the recent Massachusetts case, the judge obly concluded that the actions didn’t violate the law. She described the actions as “repellent and disturbing” so it’s pretty clear that she was just doing her job of interpreting the law as written rather than actually expressing approval.

  36. Well, technically not true. The man was taking photographs of women sitting on the steps. And that is not “upskirting” in the sense as he was not doing anything to get the shots, he was just taking photos that were there.. So in that case, if you are sitting with your underoos showing…. that is on you, not the photographer.
    But the Mass. decision did state that taking upskirt photos was ok – as a woman wearing a dress is not “nude or partially nude” and we have no expectation of privacy under our own clothes. http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/05/us/massachusetts-upskirt-photography/
    So… yeah.. basically women are objects everywhere.

  37. The law is that when you are in a public setting, people are allowed to take photos of you from any angle. They’re not allowed to touch you, they’re not allowed to obstruct you, but if you’re in a public setting, you have no expectation of privacy. They’re not allowed to actually get under your clothes, but it’s on you to make sure your clothes cover all angles. The alternitive is to have laws that could be very easily abused to prevent reporters and normal citizens from taking pictures of things like, oh say, police violently arresting somebody. Even when it’s explicitly legal in this country to do that, we still have lots of cases where police try to stop people from filming them. Among other effects, any laws restricting photography or filming in public spaces would give them a legal basis to do so- it’s a very scary road to go down.

    While the law does allow perverts room to operate, you can file a civil case if they use your image for commercial gain without your consent. So if any of the women in these videos figured out that it was them, they would have a cause of action to sue this guy (and likely the website), since he and the site are getting money from the videos. And would likely find a very sympathetic jury willing to dole out lots of punitive damages.

  38. I was the last person who confronted the metro creeper.. This is sick and affirms why you need to call this crap out when you see it.

    Next time time I see this shit I’m throwing their phone into the rails… they can feel free to attempt to ask for restitution.. small claims court is a bitch.

  39. Having had my phone damaged by a driver upset at me taking his picture after he hit me with his car, I can tell you I didn’t have to go to small claims court for it. He had to pay me for a new phone, via the court, as part of his sentencing. I didn’t have to do anything other than give them a dollar amount and then wait a few months.

  40. I mean, not going to argue beyond confirming…you went to…. court….

    Creep: “judge he hit my phone out of my hand and threw it in the train tracks while filming the 15 yr old girls crotch sitting at the metro… I deserve restitution…”

    Judge: “do you have proof he did it?”

    Creep: “No one was willing to stand up for me based upon me filming the teen”

    Judge: “leave my court”

    Judges do have to make choices based on facts of law, but can still say there isnt enough circumstantial evidence…

  41. The poster is not going to exchange information or wait for the cops, as the two of you presumably did. Not condoning breaking phones, but I think it’s a different situation.

  42. I’m pretty sure if they know they’re legally protected by the courts then they actually would if you just cost them $300-600. Not saying I wouldn’t want to do the same thing myself, but I wouldn’t be surprised if I paid a personal penalty for it.

  43. I appreciate the warning, but it seems like bad form to actually include the link and push more traffic his direction.

  44. If someone from PoP’ville recognizes their image (or that of a friend, family member, colleague, etc), that person can request for Xhamster to take down the video. Best case scenario is that Xhamster gets flooded with requests to remove the videos (“Hey that’s my unauthorized image while I’m commuting!”) and all of these are removed. Awareness is a good thing.
    PS – my guess is that if you run a Google search on the user name, you’ll find that this perv has posted to multiple sites. Ugh.

  45. Maybe I’m a cynic, but I can’t be the only person to whom it occurred that the person who posted this ‘warning’ was the person who films them?

  46. Perhaps spread public awareness of this activity on unsuckdcmetro?
    blog / twitter / facebook

  47. the judge should be investigated for child porn. wow.

    montgomery county public library system has been down
    for a week and will be down for a total of at least 2 weeks
    according to librarians….they do say that fines are suspended
    really? in the richest county in the country the online system down
    for two weeks and maybe more suspension time?

  48. What happened to the link? Or at least the username so we can check what’s posted?

  49. This was just on Fox 5 news at 5:00PM and they credited PoP with breaking it.


Subscribe to our mailing list