Reddit forum "Creepshots" shut down - Page 14

On October 17 2012 02:01 Positronic wrote:


You should ask her whether she would care if the photos being taken were without her knowledge or consent, and taken in what could be an explicit manner, along with being prime masturbatory material. If she responds negatively, then I think you may have some justification for feeling that way, but I'm going to make an assumption and say she probably will care.

Men don't have to deal with the same things as women on a broad societal basis (personal safety, sexual assault, discrimination, among other things), so I wouldn't extend the notion of others, especially females, sharing your feelings too far.

On October 17 2012 01:29 rackdude wrote:
You know, if you think it's so despicable that you don't want anyone to know about what you're doing... don't do it. If you think what you're doing is right, then you shouldn't care who knows.

On October 17 2012 01:58 Jonas wrote:
Nobody questions anything when the paparazzi get PAID to take pictures of famous people without their consent, but all of a sudden when it is not-famous people getting their pictures taken by people who do it only occasionally it is immoral and illegal? Not only that, but it is worth literally ruining 30+ people's lives over? Give me a break. Anyone that supports this sort of behavior needs to re-evaluate their entire world view.

The challenge for communities like Reddit — as well as for Pinterest, Instagram, Tumblr and others that have to decide how to regulate the materials passed around their virtual corridors, is to figure out how to please all their members, without driving some of them away. And one has to look only at the previous glory of social giants like Myspace, Friendster and Digg, and at how rarely they are currently mentioned, to understand how fragile the line is between life and death for a site.

BUT the larger risk that Reddit runs could be even greater. The harder it fights for its right to publish creepshots, the harder it may be to defend the company from the intervention of governments and regulatory organizations, as well as intellectual-property owners who could interfere with the site if it does not figure out how to regulate itself.

On October 13 2012 20:51 Microchaton wrote:
And fucking Adrian Chen did it. I hope the guy gets trampled by ultralisks. Not linking it, basically gawker released everything they could including spamming his name, where he works and his photos on an article. Disgusting.

On October 17 2012 01:57 floor exercise wrote:
I found this gif on the front page of Reddit, is this not an egregious violation of this girl's public privacy? Did she sign a consent form to be filmed?

On October 17 2012 02:24 Battleaxe wrote:
I think TL should institute an anti-reddit policy for anything non SC2 or DOTA2, this shit is just getting stupid.

On October 21 2012 09:23 Matoo- wrote:
This gif was obviously made from a TV broadcasting. So what is your suggestion? Prevent TV stations from doing crowd shots? Make everyone entering a stadium sign a consent form? Or just allow it on TV but not on the internet? What about ESPN then since they also stream matches on the web?

It just doesn't make sense. When you're at home other people should not be allowed to invade your privacy but when you're in a stadium or at Starbucks you're in a public place so deal with it.

On October 21 2012 09:37 Kukaracha wrote:

By attending a private event like a baseball game, you fall under the rules applied within that space, which often contain the permission to be filmed.

The street, on the contrary, are a public spaces, and filming people there requires their explicit authorization, unless you're filming an anonymous crowd.

On October 21 2012 09:59 Matoo- wrote:

If the stadium is privately owned then you are right, they can have their own set of rules.

However I don't see any mention of this "anyonymous crowd" stuff in public places, every source I found says that in the USA you can take a picture or video of someone (i.e. it doesn't have to be a "crowd", the picture/video can have a clear focus on one person), as long as they're not children and you're not releasing personal information about them or trying to sell it for money. Do you have a source for what you're saying?

On October 21 2012 10:05 Roflhaxx wrote:

Notice he is also from France btw. How is USA that relevant?

On October 21 2012 09:37 Kukaracha wrote:
The street, on the contrary, are a public spaces, and filming people there requires their explicit authorization, unless you're filming an anonymous crowd.

On October 17 2012 02:08 RoyW wrote:
There should be no assumption that a person is entitled to complete anonymity on the internet, particularly when creating and moderating forums called "r/rapebait, r/incest, r/picsofdeadkids, r/jailbait, and r/chokeabitch."

Whether his employer was justified in sacking him (issue for employment tribunal) is entirely separate to his right to protection of identity online.

I do believe that it is incorrect to actively encourage off-line harassment while divulging a person's identity, and this should be compared to off-line encouragement of harassment of another person, but I defintiely believe that there is no inherent right to protect your name from being displayed online, particularly if this information is already available online (albeit with a bit of investigation)

On October 17 2012 02:07 BerkmanZ wrote:
HEY, MAYBE WE SHOULD GET RID OF REDDIT, ALTOGETHER. i mean really can we be mad about it if we subscribe to the site. The site's contents are submitted by its users.

Or these guys should be charged with invasion of privacy or unsolicited photography when they take creepshots.