Reddit forum "Creepshots" shut down - Page 11

On October 13 2012 03:14 Microchaton wrote:
People encouraging harassment or worse by posting detailed personal informations on people are infinitely more evil than people getting off looking at upskirts.

On October 13 2012 03:28 DigitalDevil wrote:

You should at least read through the last few pages before commenting. Your statement provides no context and also the situation here is more complex than how you're laying it out.

On October 13 2012 00:07 Dfgj wrote:

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.

On October 13 2012 04:38 Quintum_ wrote:
Posting pics of someone that you did not give you consent is wrong, its illegal. You need to have written consent from each person that is distinguishable in the photograph to reproduce and distribute the image. And if it was a minor you would probably need parental consent as well.

On October 13 2012 05:29 Dfgj wrote:

what

So you're saying I can sue anyone who tags me in a facebook picture, and the entire MLG crowd can sue because no written permission was gotten from every person? You got a source on that law?

On October 13 2012 04:24 Microchaton wrote:


I literally read every post. I don't think the situation is that complex, the discussion about what is right/wrong/ethical/unethical/legal/illegal and if it should matter if it's not illegal is. The situation is that the "whistleblowers", if you will, the doxxers, are much more damaging and dangerous than the "creepers". I'm sure the majority of the people being outraged by the "creepiness" masturbated to some leaked/paparazzi pictures. The vast majority of the pictures showing anything in the various "creepshots" I've seen make it either pretty much impossible to identify the person, or don't really show either breasts or genitalia. And I fail to see how "upskirts" can show a face at the same time too, unless it's voluntary.
I'm also relatively sure that a pretty large amount of "creepshots" are done with full awareness of the person being "creeped". It's as fake as "college parties" "just turned 18" "ex-gf revenge" and other porn scenarios.

I fail to see how you can get "in trouble" in your job if you were unlucky enough to be the 0,05% of women identified as "creepshot" by people at your job (how the fuck did they find the pic in the first place?). You wear underwear ? Fantastic! At the very worst it can lead to some high schoolers being mean, cool fucking story. I'm also entirely without compassion for girls willingly having their pics put online and then complaining about it, unless they were like 11 and being manipulated by some older guy. If you're 14+ and you do that shit and it comes back to haunt you, well tough shit maybe you should have thought about it.

I'm not exactly a libertarian and I really don't see the appeal of creepshots and the like, but I disagree with the subreddit being put down, and I absolutely abhor the method, by the gawker "journalist" and the SRS people, and the people agreeing with what they did.

On October 12 2012 22:02 turdburgler wrote:


but now you are advocating harassment so by your logic we should look up info on you and post it.

"There is a line in what a sexual predator is, and taking a photo of a hot girl in public is NOT that," he said. "Creepy, yes."

On October 13 2012 06:02 Scufo wrote:
While taking pictures of random women and posting them online is undoubtedly creepy and morally questionable, I have to ask, what's the harm, really? As long as cameras exist, dudes are gonna take pictures of girls without their knowledge and wank off to them. The only difference is that, with the internet, those pictures can be shared. Either way, no one is actually being hurt.

Men making a stink over this are white-knighting, and women making a stink over this are playing the victim. Who cares if somewhere, some dude you'll never meet is masturbating to your image? There's bigger fish to fry.

On October 13 2012 06:13 DigitalDevil wrote:

First of all, some do care. It's a subjective matter and it matters more to some than others. Also, there is such a thing as degree. For example, consider the extreme that your images are posted onto an actual porn site. Most would be very offended by that. In this case, perhaps it's not as extreme an example as explicit porn, but you can't assume everyone will share your opinion.

As for the damage it can cause, please read the discussion on the previous pages.

On October 13 2012 06:26 Scufo wrote:

"People will get offended"

This, my friend, is a useless phrase, and is not a proper argument against anything. Every single day, people everywhere get offended at the most trivial shit imaginable. And it DOESN'T. MATTER. If your goal in life is to never ever offend anyone, you have a truly Herculean task ahead of you. I say again: no one is getting hurt. These dudes are not seeking out the women in the pics and raping them. Nor could they, even if they wanted to.

As for these pics getting posted to porn sites...that is irrelevant because creepshots are not porn. Porn sites are not interested in fully clothed women going about their business in public.

On October 13 2012 06:34 Scufo wrote:
You're comparing internet pictures to murder. I am done arguing.

On October 13 2012 05:52 r.Evo wrote:

It's a bit more complicated than that but in a nutshell, yes, that's the legal situation in e.g. Germany.


The more complex part is that it's illegal if someone takes a picture of you with the addit premise that:
a) Close friends/family would be able to identify you.
b) Removing you would take away an essential part of the picture.

I'm not up to date as to how exactly Facebook stories play out but as an example, yes, you have all the right in the world to tell a person who just took a picture of you to delete it right there, right now. If you didn't see the person but find it online (on a German page) getting it taken off is as simple as messaging the responsible admins. And yes, if you want to you can sue for that as well if they don't take action immediately.


PS: Case b) is mostly aimed at groups as the mentioned MLG crowd. Taking away a single person from that picture wouldn't compromise the picture in any shape or form so they have no personal right on said picture. HOWEVER, assuming that there is one person with a hilarious outfit in a group of 50 and you can argue that without the person the picture wouldn't be the same that person might keep their right on said picture.

The laws around here are not very explicit on this topic on purpose, mostly to help both sides of the issue.

On October 13 2012 06:41 DigitalDevil wrote:

No, reread the post. I am not comparing murder to the situation at hand. I am merely using the concept of murder to demonstrate there exists an act widely considered to be unethical. This is brought up to counter your argument that people will be offended by everything and seemingly implying there should be no limits. I gave you a limit here.