|
On October 22 2012 05:56 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 06:33 Chill wrote:
The internet is getting really scary and creepy. That's because freedom of speech, expression and so on were originally meant for adult, intelligent people. Now that mindless masses, teenagers and all sorts of people - who shouldn't have - have gained acces to it it's starting to spin out of control.
No. They were originally meant for RESPONSIBLE people. If you are responsible I don't care who/ how intelligent / how old you are, if you aren't and you infringe on other people's freedoms then you deserve consequences forced upon you because you aren't being accountable for the consequences in the first place.
|
On October 22 2012 06:20 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 05:56 Manit0u wrote:On October 12 2012 06:33 Chill wrote:
The internet is getting really scary and creepy. That's because freedom of speech, expression and so on were originally meant for adult, intelligent people. Now that mindless masses, teenagers and all sorts of people - who shouldn't have - have gained acces to it it's starting to spin out of control. I see no way in which arbitrarily defining who is 'meant' to have freedom of speech could be a problem. Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 06:20 Caihead wrote:On October 21 2012 20:05 3772 wrote:
People looking at other people! Terrible! I demand death sentence. Shit is this supposed to mean. The women didn't give consent to have their photos taken and put on a website for others to view for a strictly perverse reason. Are you honestly suggesting you don't have problems with shit like this? Again the exactly same treatment was given back, people posting info about these creeps and then suddenly they are up in arms over it. God damn hypocrites. Pictures are personal information aren't even remotely the same thing - the latter can lead to actual harm.
In the context of how they were taken in this specific case? This isn't public photo shoots done by news organizations, look at the purpose that it serves. The women can press restraining orders on these people for stalking them and taking photos of them like this.
|
On October 22 2012 06:22 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 06:20 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 05:56 Manit0u wrote:On October 12 2012 06:33 Chill wrote:
The internet is getting really scary and creepy. That's because freedom of speech, expression and so on were originally meant for adult, intelligent people. Now that mindless masses, teenagers and all sorts of people - who shouldn't have - have gained acces to it it's starting to spin out of control. I see no way in which arbitrarily defining who is 'meant' to have freedom of speech could be a problem. On October 22 2012 06:20 Caihead wrote:On October 21 2012 20:05 3772 wrote:
People looking at other people! Terrible! I demand death sentence. Shit is this supposed to mean. The women didn't give consent to have their photos taken and put on a website for others to view for a strictly perverse reason. Are you honestly suggesting you don't have problems with shit like this? Again the exactly same treatment was given back, people posting info about these creeps and then suddenly they are up in arms over it. God damn hypocrites. Pictures are personal information aren't even remotely the same thing - the latter can lead to actual harm. In the context of how they were taken in this specific case? This isn't public photo shoots done by news organizations, look at the purpose that it serves.
A picture on the internet, creepy as it is, doesn't invite personal harm to you. It's (I assume) anonymous and probably hasn't invaded your privacy (again, assuming it was just taken of you walking around).
Your personal information on the internet is the opposite of all that. That can actually be used to directly impact your life.
Yes, people can have perverse intentions with the photos, but they can do that with anything publicly available - even FB photos, and that doesn't make any of that media inherently wrong or harmful to the owner either. I don't disagree that the women have the right to complain/make stalking claims, but I'd still put stalking as different as providing personal information to the entire internet.
|
On October 22 2012 06:26 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 06:22 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:20 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 05:56 Manit0u wrote:On October 12 2012 06:33 Chill wrote:
The internet is getting really scary and creepy. That's because freedom of speech, expression and so on were originally meant for adult, intelligent people. Now that mindless masses, teenagers and all sorts of people - who shouldn't have - have gained acces to it it's starting to spin out of control. I see no way in which arbitrarily defining who is 'meant' to have freedom of speech could be a problem. On October 22 2012 06:20 Caihead wrote:On October 21 2012 20:05 3772 wrote:
People looking at other people! Terrible! I demand death sentence. Shit is this supposed to mean. The women didn't give consent to have their photos taken and put on a website for others to view for a strictly perverse reason. Are you honestly suggesting you don't have problems with shit like this? Again the exactly same treatment was given back, people posting info about these creeps and then suddenly they are up in arms over it. God damn hypocrites. Pictures are personal information aren't even remotely the same thing - the latter can lead to actual harm. In the context of how they were taken in this specific case? This isn't public photo shoots done by news organizations, look at the purpose that it serves. A picture on the internet, creepy as it is, doesn't invite personal harm to you. It's (I assume) anonymous and probably hasn't invaded your privacy (again, assuming it was just taken of you walking around). Your personal information on the internet is the opposite of all that. That can actually be used to directly impact your life.
There's two parts of this.
1. Stalking someone / waiting for them in public areas and taking the photo with out permission for your own personal interest.
2. Posting it online to share with other people for your own or collective interest.
I'm arguing about point 1. Point 2 is also horrible.
Hey I ain't defending the actions of this other group, but no one is doing anything about it and both groups claim legality.
|
On October 22 2012 06:27 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 06:26 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:22 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:20 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 05:56 Manit0u wrote:On October 12 2012 06:33 Chill wrote:
The internet is getting really scary and creepy. That's because freedom of speech, expression and so on were originally meant for adult, intelligent people. Now that mindless masses, teenagers and all sorts of people - who shouldn't have - have gained acces to it it's starting to spin out of control. I see no way in which arbitrarily defining who is 'meant' to have freedom of speech could be a problem. On October 22 2012 06:20 Caihead wrote:On October 21 2012 20:05 3772 wrote:
People looking at other people! Terrible! I demand death sentence. Shit is this supposed to mean. The women didn't give consent to have their photos taken and put on a website for others to view for a strictly perverse reason. Are you honestly suggesting you don't have problems with shit like this? Again the exactly same treatment was given back, people posting info about these creeps and then suddenly they are up in arms over it. God damn hypocrites. Pictures are personal information aren't even remotely the same thing - the latter can lead to actual harm. In the context of how they were taken in this specific case? This isn't public photo shoots done by news organizations, look at the purpose that it serves. A picture on the internet, creepy as it is, doesn't invite personal harm to you. It's (I assume) anonymous and probably hasn't invaded your privacy (again, assuming it was just taken of you walking around). Your personal information on the internet is the opposite of all that. That can actually be used to directly impact your life. There's two parts of this. 1. Stalking someone / waiting for them in public areas and taking the photo with out permission for your own personal interest. 2. Posting it online to share with other people for your own or collective interest. I'm arguing about point 1. Point 2 is also horrible.
Sure, both are problematic, but neither are as serious as putting someone's public information online: giving free access to seriously damage that person's life.
I extremely doubt that anyone's life is outright damaged by someone taking a photo in a public area, regardless of what they do with it. That does not mean I agree with the taking of those photos. But if we compare that to, say, the caliber of damage that someone can do with your information online (we just had an online bullying thread, at that), it's not even close.
|
On October 22 2012 06:30 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 06:27 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:26 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:22 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:20 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 05:56 Manit0u wrote:On October 12 2012 06:33 Chill wrote:
The internet is getting really scary and creepy. That's because freedom of speech, expression and so on were originally meant for adult, intelligent people. Now that mindless masses, teenagers and all sorts of people - who shouldn't have - have gained acces to it it's starting to spin out of control. I see no way in which arbitrarily defining who is 'meant' to have freedom of speech could be a problem. On October 22 2012 06:20 Caihead wrote:On October 21 2012 20:05 3772 wrote:
People looking at other people! Terrible! I demand death sentence. Shit is this supposed to mean. The women didn't give consent to have their photos taken and put on a website for others to view for a strictly perverse reason. Are you honestly suggesting you don't have problems with shit like this? Again the exactly same treatment was given back, people posting info about these creeps and then suddenly they are up in arms over it. God damn hypocrites. Pictures are personal information aren't even remotely the same thing - the latter can lead to actual harm. In the context of how they were taken in this specific case? This isn't public photo shoots done by news organizations, look at the purpose that it serves. A picture on the internet, creepy as it is, doesn't invite personal harm to you. It's (I assume) anonymous and probably hasn't invaded your privacy (again, assuming it was just taken of you walking around). Your personal information on the internet is the opposite of all that. That can actually be used to directly impact your life. There's two parts of this. 1. Stalking someone / waiting for them in public areas and taking the photo with out permission for your own personal interest. 2. Posting it online to share with other people for your own or collective interest. I'm arguing about point 1. Point 2 is also horrible. Sure, both are problematic, but neither are as serious as putting someone's public information online: giving free access to seriously damage that person's life. I extremely doubt that anyone's life is outright damaged by someone taking a photo in a public area, regardless of what they do with it. That does not mean I agree with the taking of those photos. But if we compare that to, say, the caliber of damage that someone can do with your information online (we just had an online bullying thread, at that), it's not even close.
No one is doing anything about it, and I can probably hazard to guess that there's been alot of complaints filed for these people to stop doing what they are doing, some probably from the victims themselves. And they simply refuse to. I don't agree with the implementation of this other group, but something had to be done period. You can't expect these women or any woman to go out of their way in their daily life just to prevent shit like this.
|
On October 22 2012 06:33 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 06:30 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:27 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:26 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:22 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:20 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 05:56 Manit0u wrote:On October 12 2012 06:33 Chill wrote:
The internet is getting really scary and creepy. That's because freedom of speech, expression and so on were originally meant for adult, intelligent people. Now that mindless masses, teenagers and all sorts of people - who shouldn't have - have gained acces to it it's starting to spin out of control. I see no way in which arbitrarily defining who is 'meant' to have freedom of speech could be a problem. On October 22 2012 06:20 Caihead wrote:On October 21 2012 20:05 3772 wrote:
People looking at other people! Terrible! I demand death sentence. Shit is this supposed to mean. The women didn't give consent to have their photos taken and put on a website for others to view for a strictly perverse reason. Are you honestly suggesting you don't have problems with shit like this? Again the exactly same treatment was given back, people posting info about these creeps and then suddenly they are up in arms over it. God damn hypocrites. Pictures are personal information aren't even remotely the same thing - the latter can lead to actual harm. In the context of how they were taken in this specific case? This isn't public photo shoots done by news organizations, look at the purpose that it serves. A picture on the internet, creepy as it is, doesn't invite personal harm to you. It's (I assume) anonymous and probably hasn't invaded your privacy (again, assuming it was just taken of you walking around). Your personal information on the internet is the opposite of all that. That can actually be used to directly impact your life. There's two parts of this. 1. Stalking someone / waiting for them in public areas and taking the photo with out permission for your own personal interest. 2. Posting it online to share with other people for your own or collective interest. I'm arguing about point 1. Point 2 is also horrible. Sure, both are problematic, but neither are as serious as putting someone's public information online: giving free access to seriously damage that person's life. I extremely doubt that anyone's life is outright damaged by someone taking a photo in a public area, regardless of what they do with it. That does not mean I agree with the taking of those photos. But if we compare that to, say, the caliber of damage that someone can do with your information online (we just had an online bullying thread, at that), it's not even close. No one is doing anything about it, and I can probably hazard to guess that there's been alot of complaints filed for these people to stop doing what they are doing, some probably from the victims themselves. And they simply refuse to. I don't agree with the implementation of this other group, but something had to be done period. You can't expect these women or any woman to go out of their way in their daily life just to prevent shit like this.
It's true they won't go out of their way, and they shouldn't have to. At the same time, there will always be people who use publicly available information for less than savory purposes. These two things are pretty much impossible to reconcile.
I suppose I don't really have a concluding argument for the above reason, except that I disagree that people are hypocritical to argue against release of public information.
|
On October 22 2012 06:35 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 06:33 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:30 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:27 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:26 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:22 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:20 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 05:56 Manit0u wrote:On October 12 2012 06:33 Chill wrote:
The internet is getting really scary and creepy. That's because freedom of speech, expression and so on were originally meant for adult, intelligent people. Now that mindless masses, teenagers and all sorts of people - who shouldn't have - have gained acces to it it's starting to spin out of control. I see no way in which arbitrarily defining who is 'meant' to have freedom of speech could be a problem. On October 22 2012 06:20 Caihead wrote:On October 21 2012 20:05 3772 wrote:
People looking at other people! Terrible! I demand death sentence. Shit is this supposed to mean. The women didn't give consent to have their photos taken and put on a website for others to view for a strictly perverse reason. Are you honestly suggesting you don't have problems with shit like this? Again the exactly same treatment was given back, people posting info about these creeps and then suddenly they are up in arms over it. God damn hypocrites. Pictures are personal information aren't even remotely the same thing - the latter can lead to actual harm. In the context of how they were taken in this specific case? This isn't public photo shoots done by news organizations, look at the purpose that it serves. A picture on the internet, creepy as it is, doesn't invite personal harm to you. It's (I assume) anonymous and probably hasn't invaded your privacy (again, assuming it was just taken of you walking around). Your personal information on the internet is the opposite of all that. That can actually be used to directly impact your life. There's two parts of this. 1. Stalking someone / waiting for them in public areas and taking the photo with out permission for your own personal interest. 2. Posting it online to share with other people for your own or collective interest. I'm arguing about point 1. Point 2 is also horrible. Sure, both are problematic, but neither are as serious as putting someone's public information online: giving free access to seriously damage that person's life. I extremely doubt that anyone's life is outright damaged by someone taking a photo in a public area, regardless of what they do with it. That does not mean I agree with the taking of those photos. But if we compare that to, say, the caliber of damage that someone can do with your information online (we just had an online bullying thread, at that), it's not even close. No one is doing anything about it, and I can probably hazard to guess that there's been alot of complaints filed for these people to stop doing what they are doing, some probably from the victims themselves. And they simply refuse to. I don't agree with the implementation of this other group, but something had to be done period. You can't expect these women or any woman to go out of their way in their daily life just to prevent shit like this. It's true they won't go out of their way, and they shouldn't have to. At the same time, there will always be people who use publicly available information for less than savory purposes. These two things are pretty much impossible to reconcile. I suppose I don't really have a concluding argument for the above reason, except that I disagree that people are hypocritical to argue against release of public information.
Private photos taken with out permission aren't supposed to be publically available information, don't be ridiculous.
|
On October 22 2012 06:37 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 06:35 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:33 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:30 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:27 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:26 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:22 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:20 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 05:56 Manit0u wrote:On October 12 2012 06:33 Chill wrote:
The internet is getting really scary and creepy. That's because freedom of speech, expression and so on were originally meant for adult, intelligent people. Now that mindless masses, teenagers and all sorts of people - who shouldn't have - have gained acces to it it's starting to spin out of control. I see no way in which arbitrarily defining who is 'meant' to have freedom of speech could be a problem. On October 22 2012 06:20 Caihead wrote:On October 21 2012 20:05 3772 wrote:
People looking at other people! Terrible! I demand death sentence. Shit is this supposed to mean. The women didn't give consent to have their photos taken and put on a website for others to view for a strictly perverse reason. Are you honestly suggesting you don't have problems with shit like this? Again the exactly same treatment was given back, people posting info about these creeps and then suddenly they are up in arms over it. God damn hypocrites. Pictures are personal information aren't even remotely the same thing - the latter can lead to actual harm. In the context of how they were taken in this specific case? This isn't public photo shoots done by news organizations, look at the purpose that it serves. A picture on the internet, creepy as it is, doesn't invite personal harm to you. It's (I assume) anonymous and probably hasn't invaded your privacy (again, assuming it was just taken of you walking around). Your personal information on the internet is the opposite of all that. That can actually be used to directly impact your life. There's two parts of this. 1. Stalking someone / waiting for them in public areas and taking the photo with out permission for your own personal interest. 2. Posting it online to share with other people for your own or collective interest. I'm arguing about point 1. Point 2 is also horrible. Sure, both are problematic, but neither are as serious as putting someone's public information online: giving free access to seriously damage that person's life. I extremely doubt that anyone's life is outright damaged by someone taking a photo in a public area, regardless of what they do with it. That does not mean I agree with the taking of those photos. But if we compare that to, say, the caliber of damage that someone can do with your information online (we just had an online bullying thread, at that), it's not even close. No one is doing anything about it, and I can probably hazard to guess that there's been alot of complaints filed for these people to stop doing what they are doing, some probably from the victims themselves. And they simply refuse to. I don't agree with the implementation of this other group, but something had to be done period. You can't expect these women or any woman to go out of their way in their daily life just to prevent shit like this. It's true they won't go out of their way, and they shouldn't have to. At the same time, there will always be people who use publicly available information for less than savory purposes. These two things are pretty much impossible to reconcile. I suppose I don't really have a concluding argument for the above reason, except that I disagree that people are hypocritical to argue against release of public information. Private photos taken with out permission aren't supposed to be publically available information, don't be ridiculous.
Taking a photo of someone in public is impossible to regulate. And where do you stop from there - people can just look at others in public with the same purpose.
|
On October 22 2012 06:39 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 06:37 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:35 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:33 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:30 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:27 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:26 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:22 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:20 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 05:56 Manit0u wrote:
[quote]
That's because freedom of speech, expression and so on were originally meant for adult, intelligent people. Now that mindless masses, teenagers and all sorts of people - who shouldn't have - have gained acces to it it's starting to spin out of control. I see no way in which arbitrarily defining who is 'meant' to have freedom of speech could be a problem. On October 22 2012 06:20 Caihead wrote:
[quote]
Shit is this supposed to mean. The women didn't give consent to have their photos taken and put on a website for others to view for a strictly perverse reason. Are you honestly suggesting you don't have problems with shit like this? Again the exactly same treatment was given back, people posting info about these creeps and then suddenly they are up in arms over it. God damn hypocrites. Pictures are personal information aren't even remotely the same thing - the latter can lead to actual harm. In the context of how they were taken in this specific case? This isn't public photo shoots done by news organizations, look at the purpose that it serves. A picture on the internet, creepy as it is, doesn't invite personal harm to you. It's (I assume) anonymous and probably hasn't invaded your privacy (again, assuming it was just taken of you walking around). Your personal information on the internet is the opposite of all that. That can actually be used to directly impact your life. There's two parts of this. 1. Stalking someone / waiting for them in public areas and taking the photo with out permission for your own personal interest. 2. Posting it online to share with other people for your own or collective interest. I'm arguing about point 1. Point 2 is also horrible. Sure, both are problematic, but neither are as serious as putting someone's public information online: giving free access to seriously damage that person's life. I extremely doubt that anyone's life is outright damaged by someone taking a photo in a public area, regardless of what they do with it. That does not mean I agree with the taking of those photos. But if we compare that to, say, the caliber of damage that someone can do with your information online (we just had an online bullying thread, at that), it's not even close. No one is doing anything about it, and I can probably hazard to guess that there's been alot of complaints filed for these people to stop doing what they are doing, some probably from the victims themselves. And they simply refuse to. I don't agree with the implementation of this other group, but something had to be done period. You can't expect these women or any woman to go out of their way in their daily life just to prevent shit like this. It's true they won't go out of their way, and they shouldn't have to. At the same time, there will always be people who use publicly available information for less than savory purposes. These two things are pretty much impossible to reconcile. I suppose I don't really have a concluding argument for the above reason, except that I disagree that people are hypocritical to argue against release of public information. Private photos taken with out permission aren't supposed to be publically available information, don't be ridiculous. Taking a photo of someone in public is impossible to regulate. And where do you stop from there - people can just look at others in public with the same purpose.
And you can't stalk people in public, don't be ridiculous and justify these actions as "just looking". This isn't a slippery slope argument.
|
On October 22 2012 06:40 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 06:39 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:37 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:35 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:33 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:30 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:27 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:26 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:22 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:20 Dfgj wrote:
[quote]
I see no way in which arbitrarily defining who is 'meant' to have freedom of speech could be a problem.
[quote]
Pictures are personal information aren't even remotely the same thing - the latter can lead to actual harm. In the context of how they were taken in this specific case? This isn't public photo shoots done by news organizations, look at the purpose that it serves. A picture on the internet, creepy as it is, doesn't invite personal harm to you. It's (I assume) anonymous and probably hasn't invaded your privacy (again, assuming it was just taken of you walking around). Your personal information on the internet is the opposite of all that. That can actually be used to directly impact your life. There's two parts of this. 1. Stalking someone / waiting for them in public areas and taking the photo with out permission for your own personal interest. 2. Posting it online to share with other people for your own or collective interest. I'm arguing about point 1. Point 2 is also horrible. Sure, both are problematic, but neither are as serious as putting someone's public information online: giving free access to seriously damage that person's life. I extremely doubt that anyone's life is outright damaged by someone taking a photo in a public area, regardless of what they do with it. That does not mean I agree with the taking of those photos. But if we compare that to, say, the caliber of damage that someone can do with your information online (we just had an online bullying thread, at that), it's not even close. No one is doing anything about it, and I can probably hazard to guess that there's been alot of complaints filed for these people to stop doing what they are doing, some probably from the victims themselves. And they simply refuse to. I don't agree with the implementation of this other group, but something had to be done period. You can't expect these women or any woman to go out of their way in their daily life just to prevent shit like this. It's true they won't go out of their way, and they shouldn't have to. At the same time, there will always be people who use publicly available information for less than savory purposes. These two things are pretty much impossible to reconcile. I suppose I don't really have a concluding argument for the above reason, except that I disagree that people are hypocritical to argue against release of public information. Private photos taken with out permission aren't supposed to be publically available information, don't be ridiculous. Taking a photo of someone in public is impossible to regulate. And where do you stop from there - people can just look at others in public with the same purpose. And you can't stalk people in public, don't be ridiculous and justify these actions as "just looking". This isn't a slippery slope argument.
Is taking pictures in public considered stalking in the legal definition? I don't actually know what laws are like there.
|
On October 22 2012 06:45 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 06:40 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:39 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:37 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:35 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:33 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:30 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:27 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:26 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:22 Caihead wrote:
[quote]
In the context of how they were taken in this specific case? This isn't public photo shoots done by news organizations, look at the purpose that it serves. A picture on the internet, creepy as it is, doesn't invite personal harm to you. It's (I assume) anonymous and probably hasn't invaded your privacy (again, assuming it was just taken of you walking around). Your personal information on the internet is the opposite of all that. That can actually be used to directly impact your life. There's two parts of this. 1. Stalking someone / waiting for them in public areas and taking the photo with out permission for your own personal interest. 2. Posting it online to share with other people for your own or collective interest. I'm arguing about point 1. Point 2 is also horrible. Sure, both are problematic, but neither are as serious as putting someone's public information online: giving free access to seriously damage that person's life. I extremely doubt that anyone's life is outright damaged by someone taking a photo in a public area, regardless of what they do with it. That does not mean I agree with the taking of those photos. But if we compare that to, say, the caliber of damage that someone can do with your information online (we just had an online bullying thread, at that), it's not even close. No one is doing anything about it, and I can probably hazard to guess that there's been alot of complaints filed for these people to stop doing what they are doing, some probably from the victims themselves. And they simply refuse to. I don't agree with the implementation of this other group, but something had to be done period. You can't expect these women or any woman to go out of their way in their daily life just to prevent shit like this. It's true they won't go out of their way, and they shouldn't have to. At the same time, there will always be people who use publicly available information for less than savory purposes. These two things are pretty much impossible to reconcile. I suppose I don't really have a concluding argument for the above reason, except that I disagree that people are hypocritical to argue against release of public information. Private photos taken with out permission aren't supposed to be publically available information, don't be ridiculous. Taking a photo of someone in public is impossible to regulate. And where do you stop from there - people can just look at others in public with the same purpose. And you can't stalk people in public, don't be ridiculous and justify these actions as "just looking". This isn't a slippery slope argument. Is taking pictures in public considered stalking in the legal definition? I don't actually know what laws are like there.
Is there any doubt that what these people are doing is wrong? Even if the local laws don't have this definition with in it it should be implemented to defend the rights of these people in general. Just because there's a legal loophole doesn't make it right.
|
On October 22 2012 06:49 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 06:45 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:40 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:39 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:37 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:35 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:33 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:30 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:27 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:26 Dfgj wrote:
[quote]
A picture on the internet, creepy as it is, doesn't invite personal harm to you. It's (I assume) anonymous and probably hasn't invaded your privacy (again, assuming it was just taken of you walking around).
Your personal information on the internet is the opposite of all that. That can actually be used to directly impact your life. There's two parts of this. 1. Stalking someone / waiting for them in public areas and taking the photo with out permission for your own personal interest. 2. Posting it online to share with other people for your own or collective interest. I'm arguing about point 1. Point 2 is also horrible. Sure, both are problematic, but neither are as serious as putting someone's public information online: giving free access to seriously damage that person's life. I extremely doubt that anyone's life is outright damaged by someone taking a photo in a public area, regardless of what they do with it. That does not mean I agree with the taking of those photos. But if we compare that to, say, the caliber of damage that someone can do with your information online (we just had an online bullying thread, at that), it's not even close. No one is doing anything about it, and I can probably hazard to guess that there's been alot of complaints filed for these people to stop doing what they are doing, some probably from the victims themselves. And they simply refuse to. I don't agree with the implementation of this other group, but something had to be done period. You can't expect these women or any woman to go out of their way in their daily life just to prevent shit like this. It's true they won't go out of their way, and they shouldn't have to. At the same time, there will always be people who use publicly available information for less than savory purposes. These two things are pretty much impossible to reconcile. I suppose I don't really have a concluding argument for the above reason, except that I disagree that people are hypocritical to argue against release of public information. Private photos taken with out permission aren't supposed to be publically available information, don't be ridiculous. Taking a photo of someone in public is impossible to regulate. And where do you stop from there - people can just look at others in public with the same purpose. And you can't stalk people in public, don't be ridiculous and justify these actions as "just looking". This isn't a slippery slope argument. Is taking pictures in public considered stalking in the legal definition? I don't actually know what laws are like there. Is there any doubt that what these people are doing is wrong? Even if the local laws don't have this definition with in it it should be implemented to defend the rights of these people in general. Just because there's a legal loophole doesn't make it right.
That's not what I asked, is it?
I might disagree with what they're doing, and I do, but I recognize that my opinion isn't the most important thing here. If it's a legal issue (which some have said it may be with regards to sharing images), then so be it. I'm not interested in arguing right and wrong and whether the legal code accurately reflects that - but I would be interested to outright know if it does or not.
Once again, I didn't come to this thread with a conclusion, only to say that you can have differing opinions on sharing public information and taking pictures of someone in public without being hypocritical.
|
On October 22 2012 06:54 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 06:49 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:45 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:40 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:39 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:37 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:35 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:33 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:30 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:27 Caihead wrote:
[quote]
There's two parts of this.
1. Stalking someone / waiting for them in public areas and taking the photo with out permission for your own personal interest.
2. Posting it online to share with other people for your own or collective interest.
I'm arguing about point 1. Point 2 is also horrible. Sure, both are problematic, but neither are as serious as putting someone's public information online: giving free access to seriously damage that person's life. I extremely doubt that anyone's life is outright damaged by someone taking a photo in a public area, regardless of what they do with it. That does not mean I agree with the taking of those photos. But if we compare that to, say, the caliber of damage that someone can do with your information online (we just had an online bullying thread, at that), it's not even close. No one is doing anything about it, and I can probably hazard to guess that there's been alot of complaints filed for these people to stop doing what they are doing, some probably from the victims themselves. And they simply refuse to. I don't agree with the implementation of this other group, but something had to be done period. You can't expect these women or any woman to go out of their way in their daily life just to prevent shit like this. It's true they won't go out of their way, and they shouldn't have to. At the same time, there will always be people who use publicly available information for less than savory purposes. These two things are pretty much impossible to reconcile. I suppose I don't really have a concluding argument for the above reason, except that I disagree that people are hypocritical to argue against release of public information. Private photos taken with out permission aren't supposed to be publically available information, don't be ridiculous. Taking a photo of someone in public is impossible to regulate. And where do you stop from there - people can just look at others in public with the same purpose. And you can't stalk people in public, don't be ridiculous and justify these actions as "just looking". This isn't a slippery slope argument. Is taking pictures in public considered stalking in the legal definition? I don't actually know what laws are like there. Is there any doubt that what these people are doing is wrong? Even if the local laws don't have this definition with in it it should be implemented to defend the rights of these people in general. Just because there's a legal loophole doesn't make it right. That's not what I asked, is it? I might disagree with what they're doing, and I do, but I recognize that my opinion isn't the most important thing here. If it's a legal issue (which some have said it may be with regards to sharing images), then so be it. I'm not interested in arguing right and wrong and whether the legal code accurately reflects that - but I would be interested to outright know if it does or not. Once again, I didn't come to this thread with a conclusion, only to say that you can have differing opinions on sharing public information and taking pictures of someone in public without being hypocritical.
Both groups claim legality as I've already said. But investigations have already revealed a sexual predator as the result of the investigation. There's an obvious logical link between a person who would do this and a person who would make the logical conclusion to push the limits of law to their own interests. They don't view women as human beings. All you have to do is ask a simple question. Responsibility and consent is one of the most basic legal principles.
Also you have to consider the possibility that these people are repeat offenders to the same woman, or possibly even know information about the woman they are taking photos of. That qualifies as stalking and it also qualifies as harassment.
|
OK, here's my take on the issue. It's perfectly legal to take, and post, these pictures. Reddit, as an aggregator of free speech, should allow such a subreddit to exist. I'm not going to use it, certainly, but people have every right to do this.
|
The shouldn't have. It cut off 95% of police job on perverts and sexual maniacs.
|
On October 23 2012 00:58 _NIx_ wrote:
OK, here's my take on the issue. It's perfectly legal to take, and post, these pictures. Reddit, as an aggregator of free speech, should allow such a subreddit to exist. I'm not going to use it, certainly, but people have every right to do this.
I honestly cannot fathom how you could think that. How is taking pictures of unknowing women and distributing them on the internet for sexual purposes free speech? That's borderline stalking/sexual harassment, that's not free speech. I think the person that put these peoples information up was in the right, people who do this sort of thing are sick and probably have psychological issues. People like that need to be outed and forced to seek help or ostracized from society as they probably already are or will become full sexual predictors.
|
On October 22 2012 06:26 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 06:22 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:20 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 05:56 Manit0u wrote:On October 12 2012 06:33 Chill wrote:
The internet is getting really scary and creepy. That's because freedom of speech, expression and so on were originally meant for adult, intelligent people. Now that mindless masses, teenagers and all sorts of people - who shouldn't have - have gained acces to it it's starting to spin out of control. I see no way in which arbitrarily defining who is 'meant' to have freedom of speech could be a problem. On October 22 2012 06:20 Caihead wrote:On October 21 2012 20:05 3772 wrote:
People looking at other people! Terrible! I demand death sentence. Shit is this supposed to mean. The women didn't give consent to have their photos taken and put on a website for others to view for a strictly perverse reason. Are you honestly suggesting you don't have problems with shit like this? Again the exactly same treatment was given back, people posting info about these creeps and then suddenly they are up in arms over it. God damn hypocrites. Pictures are personal information aren't even remotely the same thing - the latter can lead to actual harm. In the context of how they were taken in this specific case? This isn't public photo shoots done by news organizations, look at the purpose that it serves. A picture on the internet, creepy as it is, doesn't invite personal harm to you. It's (I assume) anonymous and probably hasn't invaded your privacy (again, assuming it was just taken of you walking around). Your personal information on the internet is the opposite of all that. That can actually be used to directly impact your life. Yes, people can have perverse intentions with the photos, but they can do that with anything publicly available - even FB photos, and that doesn't make any of that media inherently wrong or harmful to the owner either. I don't disagree that the women have the right to complain/make stalking claims, but I'd still put stalking as different as providing personal information to the entire internet.
uh..... all the information was provided by the users themselves to the internet. they are the ones who put their information on FB, Twitter, etc.
this girl just compiled the information that they allowed to be viewed by the public. nothing immoral, unethical, or illegal about it. if they didn't want the information viewed by the public, than why did they put their information in the public realm?
|
On October 23 2012 02:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 06:26 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:22 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:20 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 05:56 Manit0u wrote:On October 12 2012 06:33 Chill wrote:
The internet is getting really scary and creepy. That's because freedom of speech, expression and so on were originally meant for adult, intelligent people. Now that mindless masses, teenagers and all sorts of people - who shouldn't have - have gained acces to it it's starting to spin out of control. I see no way in which arbitrarily defining who is 'meant' to have freedom of speech could be a problem. On October 22 2012 06:20 Caihead wrote:On October 21 2012 20:05 3772 wrote:
People looking at other people! Terrible! I demand death sentence. Shit is this supposed to mean. The women didn't give consent to have their photos taken and put on a website for others to view for a strictly perverse reason. Are you honestly suggesting you don't have problems with shit like this? Again the exactly same treatment was given back, people posting info about these creeps and then suddenly they are up in arms over it. God damn hypocrites. Pictures are personal information aren't even remotely the same thing - the latter can lead to actual harm. In the context of how they were taken in this specific case? This isn't public photo shoots done by news organizations, look at the purpose that it serves. A picture on the internet, creepy as it is, doesn't invite personal harm to you. It's (I assume) anonymous and probably hasn't invaded your privacy (again, assuming it was just taken of you walking around). Your personal information on the internet is the opposite of all that. That can actually be used to directly impact your life. Yes, people can have perverse intentions with the photos, but they can do that with anything publicly available - even FB photos, and that doesn't make any of that media inherently wrong or harmful to the owner either. I don't disagree that the women have the right to complain/make stalking claims, but I'd still put stalking as different as providing personal information to the entire internet. uh..... all the information was provided by the users themselves to the internet. they are the ones who put their information on FB, Twitter, etc. this girl just compiled the information that they allowed to be viewed by the public. nothing immoral, unethical, or illegal about it. if they didn't want the information viewed by the public, than why did they put their information in the public realm?
Is their public information linked to their reddit profiles? Because if so, then you make a perfectly valid point.
Similarly, if people's photos were being put on that subreddit with links to their publicly available information (FB profiles, etc), this would probably be considered far more serious.
|
On October 23 2012 02:56 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 02:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 22 2012 06:26 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:22 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:20 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 05:56 Manit0u wrote:On October 12 2012 06:33 Chill wrote:
The internet is getting really scary and creepy. That's because freedom of speech, expression and so on were originally meant for adult, intelligent people. Now that mindless masses, teenagers and all sorts of people - who shouldn't have - have gained acces to it it's starting to spin out of control. I see no way in which arbitrarily defining who is 'meant' to have freedom of speech could be a problem. On October 22 2012 06:20 Caihead wrote:On October 21 2012 20:05 3772 wrote:
People looking at other people! Terrible! I demand death sentence. Shit is this supposed to mean. The women didn't give consent to have their photos taken and put on a website for others to view for a strictly perverse reason. Are you honestly suggesting you don't have problems with shit like this? Again the exactly same treatment was given back, people posting info about these creeps and then suddenly they are up in arms over it. God damn hypocrites. Pictures are personal information aren't even remotely the same thing - the latter can lead to actual harm. In the context of how they were taken in this specific case? This isn't public photo shoots done by news organizations, look at the purpose that it serves. A picture on the internet, creepy as it is, doesn't invite personal harm to you. It's (I assume) anonymous and probably hasn't invaded your privacy (again, assuming it was just taken of you walking around). Your personal information on the internet is the opposite of all that. That can actually be used to directly impact your life. Yes, people can have perverse intentions with the photos, but they can do that with anything publicly available - even FB photos, and that doesn't make any of that media inherently wrong or harmful to the owner either. I don't disagree that the women have the right to complain/make stalking claims, but I'd still put stalking as different as providing personal information to the entire internet. uh..... all the information was provided by the users themselves to the internet. they are the ones who put their information on FB, Twitter, etc. this girl just compiled the information that they allowed to be viewed by the public. nothing immoral, unethical, or illegal about it. if they didn't want the information viewed by the public, than why did they put their information in the public realm? Is their public information linked to their reddit profiles? Because if so, then you make a perfectly valid point. Similarly, if people's photos were being put on that subreddit with links to their publicly available information (FB profiles, etc), this would probably be considered far more serious.
their information is publicly available. how one gets that information is entirely irrelevant, because one has to break no commonly accepted law or standard in order to acquire it. is looking for an old friend or old lover on FB wrong? and if, while in the process of looking for this old friend, you stumble upon someone elses profile, is that wrong? have I wandered into someone's private space?
if Sarah Palin has a FB, and I link to it, am I suddenly "making her private information public"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
