Originally Posted by
Less Hair
No streaming camera. Nobody inside the lav could be remotely filmed from the cockpit. This is why there is no need to react like there was one. It would be entirely different if some perv would actually film people on the loo.
Next time you are in the lav on an AC see if the inflight wifi is available, if so there is no technical reason that a perv could not do a livestream.
As to
"react like there was one" from the lawsuit it reads like the pilots did a good job of convincing her that there was one.
The damages claimed relate mostly to distress caused by believing she had been watched, not that whether or not she actually had been.
Another way to think about this:
Using an unloaded gun in a robbery is still an armed robbery felony, likewise threatening someone to get something is still extortion even if the threat is not executable as long as the victim believes that it is.
Good example of that is the internet spam/scam that threatens to publicly release a users porn viewing history even though the spammer has no such thing.
This works because users who don't view porn (or dont care who knows) ignore it but some will take the bait and fork over money or ID information.