But the technology also is being used for less than savory purposes.

That has attracted attention, and two Florida lawmakers want to update state law on video voyeurism to combat what they see as a growing problem of privacy invasion.

State Sen. Dave Aronberg, a former assistant in the Florida Attorney General's Office, described how a modern-day ``Peeping Tom'' operates:

* Shooting photos in locker rooms while pretending to hold cell phone conversations or tinkering with a personal digital assistant.

* Aiming cameras embedded in shoes up women's skirts.

* Filming with pencil-sized surveillance cameras surreptitiously mounted in bedrooms and bathrooms.

Aronberg, D-West Palm Beach, has introduced Senate Bill 284, which would close loopholes in state law to help combat video voyeurism.

``Right now, we're using 20th century laws to battle a 21st century problem,'' he said.

Rep. John Stargel, R-Lakeland, is preparing companion legislation in the House.

``Technology is a wonderful thing, but when it's used for unintended purposes, it can have dire results and consequences,'' Stargel said.

Current voyeurism law, a section of the state's burglary and trespass statutes, makes it illegal to observe or record someone ``with lewd, lascivious, or indecent intent'' in an area where the victim would expect privacy.

Voyeurism is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail. The law was passed in 1998, before the minicam explosion.

``The law that's already on the books envisions a person in a dark hat and trench coat secretly photographing with a perverted intent,'' Aronberg said. It does not criminalize the invasion of privacy to humiliate someone - taking a photo of a co-worker in the locker room and spreading it around the office, for example - or if the intent is profit.

Aronberg's bill would prohibit:

* ``Secretly viewing, recording, or broadcasting images of another person for the purpose of entertainment, sexual arousal, profit, or abuse'' when the victim is in a location that ``provides a reasonable expectation of privacy.''

* Filming or recording ``under or through'' a person's clothing in those same circumstances.

* Disseminating or selling such images.

Video voyeurism isn't always for the gratification of the person with the camera. Such images often are sold to any of thousands of Web sites. Aronberg's bill addresses those more modern motivations.

It also closes wide loopholes.

For example, in June 2000, a Fort Lauderdale renter found a tiny spy camera in the smoke detector in the bedroom of his cottage. No case was brought against the landlord. An assistant state attorney said that if the landlord was videotaping to document destruction or an illegal business, it would not be considered lewd intent.

Such victims can bring civil cases citing invasion of privacy.

Aronberg considers himself a champion of privacy rights. At the same time, he describes himself as ``big into technology'' and the owner of a camera-equipped Treo 600 phone/organizer.

He said the bill could help stave off calls for an outright ban of minicam devices.

``If we don't do this this year, it will be a growing problem,'' Aronberg said. ``I suspect there will be loud public demand for protection against these new technologies.''

Reporter Jerome R. Stockfisch can be reached at (850) 222-8382.