|
On October 12 2012 07:28 Positronic wrote:
I realize that I'm dealing with a forum full of gigantic fucking internet nerds
This is one of the best ways I know to lose a argument, resort to blatant stereotypes and insult everyone. I agree with you that this is creepy, but you're not going to convert anyone to your opinion in this manner.
|
On October 12 2012 07:57 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 07:28 Positronic wrote:
I realize that I'm dealing with a forum full of gigantic fucking internet nerds
This is one of the best ways I know to lose a argument, resort to blatant stereotypes and insult everyone. I agree with you that this is creepy, but you're not going to convert anyone to your opinion in this manner.
That's not an insult I count myself among them
|
double post, delete please
|
|
Show nested quote +Intrusion of solitude: physical or electronic intrusion into one's private quarters. Has not happened in this case, information was found on public websites Show nested quote +Public disclosure of private facts: the dissemination of truthful private information which a reasonable person would find objectionable Nothing private about the information provided, all of it public Show nested quote +False light: the publication of facts which place a person in a false light, even though the facts themselves may not be defamatory. There is no false light here Show nested quote +Appropriation: the unauthorized use of a person's name or likeness to obtain some benefits. No benefits being obtained
Wouldn't it be that the information being revealed is the fact that <some person>goes by <some name> on reddit? That would violate number 2 since that information is not public.
|
|
You found a different topic, of which 4/5 are dead threads.
|
On October 12 2012 08:02 DeltaX wrote:Show nested quote +Intrusion of solitude: physical or electronic intrusion into one's private quarters. Has not happened in this case, information was found on public websites Public disclosure of private facts: the dissemination of truthful private information which a reasonable person would find objectionable Nothing private about the information provided, all of it public False light: the publication of facts which place a person in a false light, even though the facts themselves may not be defamatory. There is no false light here Appropriation: the unauthorized use of a person's name or likeness to obtain some benefits. No benefits being obtained Wouldn't it be that the information being revealed is the fact that <some person>goes by <some name> on reddit? That would violate number 2 since that information is not public.
http://predditors.tumblr.com/post/33384212715/jeremy-wayne-lohr-hersoldier1023
edit: if this link doesn't make it blatantly obvious, this guy and the others ones I remember personally from the tumblr used the same screenname on reddit, twitter, facebook, etc, or even used their own name as an alias, and post their personal information on any of those services, making it as simple as one-two-three to find their information.
|
On October 12 2012 07:45 Positronic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 07:36 Zocat wrote:On October 12 2012 07:10 Positronic wrote:On October 12 2012 07:07 emythrel wrote:On October 12 2012 06:56 BlueLanterna wrote:On October 12 2012 06:50 Monochromatic wrote:On October 12 2012 06:23 BlueLanterna wrote: I love the irony in this situation, a bunch of creeps being angry about having their photos posted online when they've doing the same thing to hundreds of unaware girls for who-knows-how-long There is a difference between a photo of a girl in public and your name, address, and private photos. Honestly this whole thing is stupid, this is why I stay away from reddit. Actually none of the information is private, it's all public. So if i can get your IP, address, name, school, work off the internet, do i have the right to post it and tell you people you are doing bad things? My only proof being that I can link a username on reddit to your username elsewhere? Or that your IP was the one that uploaded the pics? IP's can be faked, people use the same usernames. How do you know that this information is correct? Who gets to decide what is fact and what is not? actually if it's public information, you're not committing a crime by taking that information and posting it wherever you want to, so if i was doing "bad things" and i was stupid enough to have all of my information public so that it was available to whoever wanted it, then yes, you do have that right also your "is your information correct" argument is a strawman that has no basis in this instance. You're wrong. It is a crime in some countries. (i.e. Germany Informationelle Selbstbestimmung; but we also have the "Recht am eigenen Bild" which is basically the same for pictures  ) Also interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States#Modern_tort_law Show nested quote +Public disclosure of private facts: the dissemination of truthful private information which a reasonable person would find objectionable Nothing private about the information provided, all of it public
It's this one. It's about private facts - how the information is classified (private). Not how the information is available (public).
|
On October 12 2012 07:56 Positronic wrote: expose whoever is taking advantage of their position to take more pictures (the pedophile in the OP). That's not pedophilia. Rather, it's just what you described - a public schoolteacher taking advantage of a position of trust. For reference, the age of consent in Georgia is 16, which as usual in the United States, is after puberty (pedophilia is the attraction to prepubescents, which for all we know this guy may or may not have, or you or I may or may not have, but which isn't relevant in this case).
|
On October 12 2012 08:03 Disposition1989 wrote:You found a different topic, of which 4/5 are dead threads. They aren't dead threads if they are still open. And they are all discussing "questionable content" on subreddits which has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum. It's just spillover from the crusaders on reddit into TL imo.
|
On October 12 2012 08:05 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 07:45 Positronic wrote:On October 12 2012 07:36 Zocat wrote:On October 12 2012 07:10 Positronic wrote:On October 12 2012 07:07 emythrel wrote:On October 12 2012 06:56 BlueLanterna wrote:On October 12 2012 06:50 Monochromatic wrote:On October 12 2012 06:23 BlueLanterna wrote: I love the irony in this situation, a bunch of creeps being angry about having their photos posted online when they've doing the same thing to hundreds of unaware girls for who-knows-how-long There is a difference between a photo of a girl in public and your name, address, and private photos. Honestly this whole thing is stupid, this is why I stay away from reddit. Actually none of the information is private, it's all public. So if i can get your IP, address, name, school, work off the internet, do i have the right to post it and tell you people you are doing bad things? My only proof being that I can link a username on reddit to your username elsewhere? Or that your IP was the one that uploaded the pics? IP's can be faked, people use the same usernames. How do you know that this information is correct? Who gets to decide what is fact and what is not? actually if it's public information, you're not committing a crime by taking that information and posting it wherever you want to, so if i was doing "bad things" and i was stupid enough to have all of my information public so that it was available to whoever wanted it, then yes, you do have that right also your "is your information correct" argument is a strawman that has no basis in this instance. You're wrong. It is a crime in some countries. (i.e. Germany Informationelle Selbstbestimmung; but we also have the "Recht am eigenen Bild" which is basically the same for pictures  ) Also interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States#Modern_tort_law Public disclosure of private facts: the dissemination of truthful private information which a reasonable person would find objectionable Nothing private about the information provided, all of it public It's this one. It's about private facts - how the information is classified (private). Not how the information is available (public).
I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're arguing, can you rephrase maybe? There were no private facts, if that's what you're saying, the information that was found anybody could have done and took no extra effort phishing for passwords or the like.
|
On October 12 2012 08:06 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 07:56 Positronic wrote: expose whoever is taking advantage of their position to take more pictures (the pedophile in the OP). That's not pedophilia. Rather, it's just what you described - a public schoolteacher taking advantage of a position of trust. For reference, the age of consent in Georgia is 16, which as usual in the United States, is after puberty (pedophilia is the attraction to prepubescents, which for all we know this guy may or may not have, or you or I may or may not have, but which isn't relevant in this case).
I don't care to make the distinction between ephebophiles and pedophiles, personally, I think that's a bit of a euphemism but I do see your point
|
On October 12 2012 07:51 acker wrote: As, well, creepy as it is, I can't see anything making this illegal. People are allowed to take pictures of other people in public. And people are perfectly entitled to public information on other people.
It's basically like celebrity following, except on average people.
Well am pretty sure that if this continues and grows states will make it illegal. As far as i know this is illegal in the netherlands already. There is a difference between celebrity following and following average people. Celebritys are public figures and can reasonably expect their fotos to be taken (not that i agree with this btw, but a judge said this), for normal people this argument would not go and it would be intrusion of their privacy. That the published data is all public does not change annything about this.
|
On October 12 2012 07:42 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 07:31 SilverLeagueElite wrote: Decided to check out what Reddit was. Clicked through some front page hot topics. Seems to be lots of memes and pics. How's this different from 4chan? In case you aren't trolling: It's actually quite different from 4chan, ostensibly because reddit uses upvotes, has different thread styles, etc, but also because the control si very descentralized. If you wanted to, you could open a reddit dedicated to anything right now. and it will stay open for at least a little bit.
No, not trolling. I've long since outgrown 4chan and have mostly stayed away from similar style boards, but Reddit has been making the news lately. As far as product output is concerned, they both seem similar - a freestyle anything goes message board. Except that Reddit is moderated and tries to maintain some sense of social decorum.
The jailbait and creepshot groups would probably find a more fitting place at 4chan.
|
As far as I can tell, the practice of these creep shots is no different than that of the National Enquirer, only they don't target celebrities. Why isn't this chick all up in arms about celebrities being photographed against their will and going after tabloid newspapers?
|
On October 12 2012 08:17 Durp wrote: As far as I can tell, the practice of these creep shots is no different than that of the National Enquirer, only they don't target celebrities. Why isn't this chick all up in arms about celebrities being photographed against their will and going after tabloid newspapers?
Because our society is full of double standards and no one sympathizes with rich people.
|
On October 12 2012 08:11 Positronic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 08:06 oBlade wrote:On October 12 2012 07:56 Positronic wrote: expose whoever is taking advantage of their position to take more pictures (the pedophile in the OP). That's not pedophilia. Rather, it's just what you described - a public schoolteacher taking advantage of a position of trust. For reference, the age of consent in Georgia is 16, which as usual in the United States, is after puberty (pedophilia is the attraction to prepubescents, which for all we know this guy may or may not have, or you or I may or may not have, but which isn't relevant in this case). I don't care to make the distinction between ephebophiles and pedophiles, personally, I think that's a bit of a euphemism but I do see your point A bit of a euphemism? Well clearly you are ignorant then, if you think pedophilia and every other type of chronophilia are somehow comparable at all.
Pedophilia is the only one listed as a disorder by the DSM and the only one ever regarded as a pathopsychology by psychologists anywhere. What you are likely expressing is an emotional response which has been conditioned into you by a society which has arbitrarily chosen 18 as the age of consent.
|
|
scum gets some taste of their own shit. i applaud this
and what fucking cowards they are for bitching about their info getting posted. if its so fine man up and let evryone know who you are. if its not fine then stop doing such crap.
|
|
|
|