|
On October 12 2012 16:52 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
Am I evil for not seeing anything wrong here?
It's a weird fetish. It's not illegal. No one is getting hurt.
Now looking up their personal info then, that is fucking creepy and childish.
I cant believe that there are people in the world who think that taking pictures of women and posting them on public forums is not creepy.
|
On October 12 2012 22:42 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 22:36 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 12 2012 21:29 Severedevil wrote:On October 12 2012 21:26 Grumbels wrote:
If there was a photo of me out there that was used as 'material' for some people I would want them to stop and I would feel a little bit violated if I didn't give consent, I think most people are the same. Would you feel equally violated if the picture/video were amusing rather than erotic, and people distributed it to laugh rather than to wank? The context in which the personal information is presented may change how one feels about it. People are generally surprisingly consenting when their photos are used in a somewhat neutral sense. Implicit consent is thus assumed in most cases. The more inappropriate the scenario, the more likely implicit consent is not given. This continuum concept can be applied to "amusing" photos as well. Perhaps it's more unlikely that the person will give implicit consent, especially if it mocks them, but certainly the degree of severity varies. Creepshots is one of those areas where the context is deemed inappropriate by most and implicit consent should not be assumed. It doesn't take much effort to see why it's unethical. Disclaimer: my argument only applies to pictures of a girl waiting for the bus / going about her day, not upskirts or sexually explicit ones. It would be impossible to enforce such stuff as it would be dependent on the thought process of the viewer. If it's a completely clean photo how can you differentiate the people who simply go "Aww, she's quite cute" to the people using it to fap? Given how weird some people's sexual preferences are, it's not implausible to suggest that some people may obtain sexual gratification from otherwise "normal" photos.
Contextual information doesn't only rely on the photos themselves. For example, you can easily add an inappropriate caption. Let's say you don't even alter the photo but you post it on some notorious place on the web like creepshots. Clearly, the place where the photo is posted suggests something inappropriate. Surely it's within reason to say creepshots is inappropriate?
|
On October 12 2012 22:47 DigitalDevil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 22:42 S_SienZ wrote:On October 12 2012 22:36 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 12 2012 21:29 Severedevil wrote:On October 12 2012 21:26 Grumbels wrote:
If there was a photo of me out there that was used as 'material' for some people I would want them to stop and I would feel a little bit violated if I didn't give consent, I think most people are the same. Would you feel equally violated if the picture/video were amusing rather than erotic, and people distributed it to laugh rather than to wank? The context in which the personal information is presented may change how one feels about it. People are generally surprisingly consenting when their photos are used in a somewhat neutral sense. Implicit consent is thus assumed in most cases. The more inappropriate the scenario, the more likely implicit consent is not given. This continuum concept can be applied to "amusing" photos as well. Perhaps it's more unlikely that the person will give implicit consent, especially if it mocks them, but certainly the degree of severity varies. Creepshots is one of those areas where the context is deemed inappropriate by most and implicit consent should not be assumed. It doesn't take much effort to see why it's unethical. Disclaimer: my argument only applies to pictures of a girl waiting for the bus / going about her day, not upskirts or sexually explicit ones. It would be impossible to enforce such stuff as it would be dependent on the thought process of the viewer. If it's a completely clean photo how can you differentiate the people who simply go "Aww, she's quite cute" to the people using it to fap? Given how weird some people's sexual preferences are, it's not implausible to suggest that some people may obtain sexual gratification from otherwise "normal" photos. Contextual information doesn't only rely on the photos themselves. For example, you can easily add an inappropriate caption. Let's say you don't even alter the photo but you post it on some notorious place on the web like creepshots. Clearly, the place where the photo is posted suggests something inappropriate. Surely it's within reason to say creepshots is inappropriate?
Yes, with that in mind you could say that creepshots is inappropriate.
But it will come back, and what are you to do when people figure this out? And just have a plain wall of photos, without calling themselves Creepshots (probably on par with PirateBay calling themselves The Pirate Bay in terms of stupidity) and without captions. Effectively such rules only make people package the problem better, it doesn't make it go away.
|
On October 12 2012 16:52 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
Am I evil for not seeing anything wrong here?
It's a weird fetish. It's not illegal. No one is getting hurt.
Now looking up their personal info then, that is fucking creepy and childish.
I think going out of your way to post pictures of other people without their knowledge or consent is creepy as hell. I'd be furious if stalker-type pictures of my girlfriend or family members were posted, and photos of you circulating the internet with a lack of context attached to them can have the potential to screw you over if you work in a professional setting. Having no control over that level of privacy is pretty unsettling, in my opinion.
|
On October 12 2012 23:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 16:52 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
Am I evil for not seeing anything wrong here?
It's a weird fetish. It's not illegal. No one is getting hurt.
Now looking up their personal info then, that is fucking creepy and childish. I think going out of your way to post pictures of other people without their knowledge or consent is creepy as hell. I'd be furious if stalker-type pictures of my girlfriend or family members were posted, and photos of you circulating the internet with a lack of context attached to them can have the potential to screw you over if you work in a professional setting. Having no control over that level of privacy is pretty unsettling, in my opinion.
I agree, I would feel disgusted and disturbed if someone I know was included on that site XD I feel for all the people that were up there. Pretty scary.
|
On October 12 2012 22:54 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 22:47 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 12 2012 22:42 S_SienZ wrote:On October 12 2012 22:36 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 12 2012 21:29 Severedevil wrote:On October 12 2012 21:26 Grumbels wrote:
If there was a photo of me out there that was used as 'material' for some people I would want them to stop and I would feel a little bit violated if I didn't give consent, I think most people are the same. Would you feel equally violated if the picture/video were amusing rather than erotic, and people distributed it to laugh rather than to wank? The context in which the personal information is presented may change how one feels about it. People are generally surprisingly consenting when their photos are used in a somewhat neutral sense. Implicit consent is thus assumed in most cases. The more inappropriate the scenario, the more likely implicit consent is not given. This continuum concept can be applied to "amusing" photos as well. Perhaps it's more unlikely that the person will give implicit consent, especially if it mocks them, but certainly the degree of severity varies. Creepshots is one of those areas where the context is deemed inappropriate by most and implicit consent should not be assumed. It doesn't take much effort to see why it's unethical. Disclaimer: my argument only applies to pictures of a girl waiting for the bus / going about her day, not upskirts or sexually explicit ones. It would be impossible to enforce such stuff as it would be dependent on the thought process of the viewer. If it's a completely clean photo how can you differentiate the people who simply go "Aww, she's quite cute" to the people using it to fap? Given how weird some people's sexual preferences are, it's not implausible to suggest that some people may obtain sexual gratification from otherwise "normal" photos. Contextual information doesn't only rely on the photos themselves. For example, you can easily add an inappropriate caption. Let's say you don't even alter the photo but you post it on some notorious place on the web like creepshots. Clearly, the place where the photo is posted suggests something inappropriate. Surely it's within reason to say creepshots is inappropriate? Yes, with that in mind you could say that creepshots is inappropriate. But it will come back, and what are you to do when people figure this out? And just have a plain wall of photos, without calling themselves Creepshots (probably on par with PirateBay calling themselves The Pirate Bay in terms of stupidity) and without captions. Effectively such rules only make people package the problem better, it doesn't make it go away.
Regardless of how they end up getting around it, it's still an unethical practice. Notice I am not suggesting a solution but merely providing commentary.
|
On October 12 2012 22:46 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 16:52 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
Am I evil for not seeing anything wrong here?
It's a weird fetish. It's not illegal. No one is getting hurt.
Now looking up their personal info then, that is fucking creepy and childish. I cant believe that there are people in the world who think that taking pictures of women and posting them on public forums is not creepy.
You've never read a women's magazine where paparazzi do it all the time. :D You must not see Cosmo's  lol
|
On October 12 2012 23:12 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 22:46 PassiveAce wrote:On October 12 2012 16:52 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
Am I evil for not seeing anything wrong here?
It's a weird fetish. It's not illegal. No one is getting hurt.
Now looking up their personal info then, that is fucking creepy and childish. I cant believe that there are people in the world who think that taking pictures of women and posting them on public forums is not creepy. You've never read a women's magazine where paparazzi do it all the time. :D You must not see Cosmo's lol
Paparazzi are not illusioned that what they do is not creepy. models in magazines get paid also.
|
On October 12 2012 22:46 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 16:52 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
Am I evil for not seeing anything wrong here?
It's a weird fetish. It's not illegal. No one is getting hurt.
Now looking up their personal info then, that is fucking creepy and childish. I cant believe that there are people in the world who think that taking pictures of women and posting them on public forums is not creepy.
He didn't say it wasn't creepy. He said it wasn't wrong.
|
On October 13 2012 00:03 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 22:46 PassiveAce wrote:On October 12 2012 16:52 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
Am I evil for not seeing anything wrong here?
It's a weird fetish. It's not illegal. No one is getting hurt.
Now looking up their personal info then, that is fucking creepy and childish. I cant believe that there are people in the world who think that taking pictures of women and posting them on public forums is not creepy. He didn't say it wasn't creepy. He said it wasn't wrong.
he implied that one was creepy while the other was not.
If he didnt mean that then I apologize.
|
On October 13 2012 00:06 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 00:03 Dfgj wrote:On October 12 2012 22:46 PassiveAce wrote:On October 12 2012 16:52 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
Am I evil for not seeing anything wrong here?
It's a weird fetish. It's not illegal. No one is getting hurt.
Now looking up their personal info then, that is fucking creepy and childish. I cant believe that there are people in the world who think that taking pictures of women and posting them on public forums is not creepy. He didn't say it wasn't creepy. He said it wasn't wrong. he implied that one was creepy while the other was not. If he didnt mean that then I apologize.
Eh, I agree with you, but I think his point was mainly that posting anonymous pictures isn't 'wrong' in the way making someone's information public is.
|
I dont think that making someones body public is somehow less "wrong" then making someones address, name or phonenumber public.
|
On October 13 2012 00:09 PassiveAce wrote:
I dont think that making someones body public is somehow less "wrong" then making someones address, name or phonenumber public.
I'd agree with you if making said body public included making them easily identifiable to the internet. That is (I'd hope) rarely the case.
It's creepy, but showing off a random person's appearance in public still invites less harm than making the details of their life public to others.
|
On October 13 2012 00:11 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 00:09 PassiveAce wrote:
I dont think that making someones body public is somehow less "wrong" then making someones address, name or phonenumber public. I'd agree with you if making said body public included making them easily identifiable to the internet. That is (I'd hope) rarely the case. It's creepy, but showing off a random person's appearance in public still invites less harm than making the details of their life public to others.
I guess I have to concede your second point. It is much easier to cause deliberate harm to someone with that kind of personal information then with a picture.
I still feel like that if your going to post embarrassing pictures of women on a public forum inhabited by teenagers with their dicks in their hands, then you should be prepared to be exposed yourself.
|
On October 13 2012 00:09 PassiveAce wrote:
I dont think that making someones body public is somehow less "wrong" then making someones address, name or phonenumber public.
It is, assuming it's merely your appearance and not literally your body underneath your clothes.
By going out in public you impliedly consent to a variety of things, such as inevitable contact with others ( esp in congested subways etc ), reasonable amount of noise etc. One of those things would be letting people see you. Sure, taking pictures is different, but my point is, people will know what you look like.
Contact information however, is never available unless positively made available by the owner's choice. There is no way to obtain it around the owner which is legal.
|
On October 13 2012 00:27 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 00:11 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:09 PassiveAce wrote:
I dont think that making someones body public is somehow less "wrong" then making someones address, name or phonenumber public. I'd agree with you if making said body public included making them easily identifiable to the internet. That is (I'd hope) rarely the case. It's creepy, but showing off a random person's appearance in public still invites less harm than making the details of their life public to others. I guess I have to concede your second point. It is much easier to cause deliberate harm to someone with that kind of personal information then with a picture. I still feel like that if your going to post embarrassing pictures of women on a public forum inhabited by teenagers with their dicks in their hands, then you should be prepared to be exposed yourself.
I'd accept that if the conditions were the same - ie: exposed in the same anonymous manner. It's a lot harder to harass a random photograph.
|
On October 13 2012 00:00 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 23:12 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 12 2012 22:46 PassiveAce wrote:On October 12 2012 16:52 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
Am I evil for not seeing anything wrong here?
It's a weird fetish. It's not illegal. No one is getting hurt.
Now looking up their personal info then, that is fucking creepy and childish. I cant believe that there are people in the world who think that taking pictures of women and posting them on public forums is not creepy. You've never read a women's magazine where paparazzi do it all the time. :D You must not see Cosmo's lol Paparazzi are not illusioned that what they do is not creepy. models in magazines get paid also.
A lot of magazine photos, such as the one of the Prince who was naked, was taken not as a model but with paparazzi.
If you are saying "it's creepy" that doesn't mean it's illegal. So either we change the laws and being a paparazzi becomes illegal along with common people taking these photos or both are labled "creepy" and allowed to exist. Double standards are ridiculous.
|
On October 12 2012 06:33 Chill wrote:
The internet is getting really scary and creepy.
Humans are scary and creepy.
|
On October 13 2012 00:39 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 00:00 PassiveAce wrote:On October 12 2012 23:12 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 12 2012 22:46 PassiveAce wrote:On October 12 2012 16:52 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
Am I evil for not seeing anything wrong here?
It's a weird fetish. It's not illegal. No one is getting hurt.
Now looking up their personal info then, that is fucking creepy and childish. I cant believe that there are people in the world who think that taking pictures of women and posting them on public forums is not creepy. You've never read a women's magazine where paparazzi do it all the time. :D You must not see Cosmo's lol Paparazzi are not illusioned that what they do is not creepy. models in magazines get paid also. A lot of magazine photos, such as the one of the Prince who was naked, was taken not as a model but with paparazzi. If you are saying "it's creepy" that doesn't mean it's illegal. So either we change the laws and being a paparazzi becomes illegal along with common people taking these photos or both are labled "creepy" and allowed to exist. Double standards are ridiculous.
I never said it was illegal. please dont put words in my virtual mouth kthx.
|
On October 13 2012 00:39 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 00:00 PassiveAce wrote:On October 12 2012 23:12 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 12 2012 22:46 PassiveAce wrote:On October 12 2012 16:52 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
Am I evil for not seeing anything wrong here?
It's a weird fetish. It's not illegal. No one is getting hurt.
Now looking up their personal info then, that is fucking creepy and childish. I cant believe that there are people in the world who think that taking pictures of women and posting them on public forums is not creepy. You've never read a women's magazine where paparazzi do it all the time. :D You must not see Cosmo's lol Paparazzi are not illusioned that what they do is not creepy. models in magazines get paid also. A lot of magazine photos, such as the one of the Prince who was naked, was taken not as a model but with paparazzi. If you are saying "it's creepy" that doesn't mean it's illegal. So either we change the laws and being a paparazzi becomes illegal along with common people taking these photos or both are labled "creepy" and allowed to exist. Double standards are ridiculous.
Paparazzi take pictures of public figures who willing opening themselves up to the public during their careers. Also, paparazzi members have been charged for breaking the law or illegally photographing someone who is not a "public figure'(a subjective term, but one used in law). That issue has been flesh out by the Supreme Court. In some states, it is illegal to photograph or record someone without their consent.
If you are in Massachusetts, M.G.L. Chapter 272, Section 105 makes it a crime to videotape or photograph a nude or partially nude person without their permission or knowledge. Partially nude is subjective, but it could be argued that positioning the camera in a way that reveals parts of the body clothing is meant to conceal(upskirt) would be covered under this law. There are other laws privacy laws that also cover this.
But for people who are saying that photographing someone without their consent is not illegal, I have one fact for you. There is no law specifically prohibiting anyone from mounting a flame thrower on their car. There is also not law specifically prohibiting you from juggling knives in a public park. Have no doubt that the police would stop you from doing both. Photographing someone without consent is not a dangerous act to the person being photographed, but the natural extension of that behavior is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
