|
On October 12 2012 08:08 Positronic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 08:05 Zocat wrote: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.
Private information (facts) is something like: Name, address, telephone number, sexual preference (this may be intimacy not privacy though), what hobbies one has, what one is doing at 10pm in his/her room, etc etc
Only the one concerning these informations (the "owner") is allowed to spread this information to the public.
So if you find someones telephone number on the owner's website, you're not allowed to publish said number on your own website (without permission). While the information is publicly accessible it's still "private" (private fact). So (according to the paragraph in the prior post) you're not allowed to publicize it elsewhere.
Of course this isnt true for celebrities, politicians, since they're classified as public figures
That said though, the pictures may be problematic as well ("Defines a "private area" as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of an individual.)":
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/s1301
(Oh and if it's a German user posting the picture he is definitely violating a law^^)
|
Personally find this too creepy and would be perfectly happy to see it shut down.
In spite of that, I think the notion that creepshots will turn men into sexual predators is pretty wild. Its a silly thing to say with no evidence whatsoever that it does or even could happen. (Note: That's not to say people who already behave in a predatory fashion like the teacher in the OP don't use it!)
Also disagree strongly with publishing people's personal details on the internet as a "punishment". If you're not the law, you don't get to decide who to punish and how. It's just as irresponsible and dangerous as creepshots, but done while pretending to hold the moral high ground.
|
On October 12 2012 06:19 TheRealArtemis wrote:
is there anything reddit doesnt have? pictures of underage kids, creepshots...cant picture why that site is so popular
Because like 99% of the site doesn't even have anything to do with this? Reddit is pretty huge with thousands of subreddits, most of them actually useful, helpful or interesting. Like someone else said in the thread, it's pretty much like saying "can't picture why the internet is so popular"
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?
That's just the default subreddits that you are automatically subscribed to when you aren't signed in, or sign up for a new account. A lot of them are things like r/funny and r/pics, so yeah, there's a lot of memes and pics. There's a lot of subreddits (thousands in fact) that can be useful or interesting for you. r/starcraft, r/worldnews, or r/science, to give some examples. But yes, it is pretty similar to how 4chan is. The differences being that it's moderated more heavily and the content you see on the front page of each subreddit is based on users upvoting those threads to get them there, not just because they are the most recent things.
|
what mama dont know... dont hurt mama
|
Ethically questionable but legally sound. Shouldn't have been taken down, but would not have visited. The blackmailing shit is... a little creepier than the pictures, actually. And that was pretty creepy to start with. And that Adrian Chen guy sounds like a total douchecock.
|
On October 12 2012 08:22 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
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.
So ironic ROFL.
It's like if the paparazzi were to lobby for anonymity for themselves hahahaha.
|
If what they were doing wasn't wrong in their own eyes then why would they be against having their names associated with it? It's like the nazi concentration camps sending fake postcards to the relatives of their detainees. If they really believed in what they were doing, they wouldn't try to cover it up.
|
On October 12 2012 08:29 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 08:22 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
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.
So ironic ROFL. It's like if the paparazzi were to lobby for anonymity for themselves hahahaha.
No, its like if the paps were to object to people publishing their adresses, phone numbers, emails etc in a public place and encouraging revenge against them.
Which is totally reasonable.
Edit: Not that I agree with creepshots
|
i just don't like the prevalence of cameras in modern society because of phones. serves as a real invasion of privacy.
|
On October 12 2012 08:32 goldenwitch wrote:
If what they were doing wasn't wrong then why would they be against having their names associated with it? It's like the nazi concentration camps sending fake postcards to the relatives of their detainees. If they really believed in what they were doing, they wouldn't try to cover it up.
witness protection is because the people helping the police have done something wrong, its honestly the only reason to hide who you are.
/s
|
On October 12 2012 08:34 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 08:32 goldenwitch wrote:
If what they were doing wasn't wrong then why would they be against having their names associated with it? It's like the nazi concentration camps sending fake postcards to the relatives of their detainees. If they really believed in what they were doing, they wouldn't try to cover it up. witness protection is because the people helping the police have done something wrong, its honestly the only reason to hide who you are. /s
I will give you that there exist multiple reasons for hiding your identity. Now you have the burden of coming up with a reason that applies to every single member of a subreddit that is more likely than "They don't want to be known as people who take creepshots."
|
On October 12 2012 08:19 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 08:11 Positronic wrote: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 pythopsychology 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.
Actually what I'm expressing is derision and disgust at those who justify going after younger girls because it's "how humans work, we're supposed to be attracted to girls in their prime" (O_O), nice swing and a miss there champ.
And yes, the term "ephebophile" can be used euphemistically
However, the term pedophilia is commonly used to refer to any sexual interest in minors below the legal age of consent, regardless of their level of physical, mental, or psychological development
|
On October 12 2012 08:43 goldenwitch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 08:34 turdburgler wrote:On October 12 2012 08:32 goldenwitch wrote:
If what they were doing wasn't wrong then why would they be against having their names associated with it? It's like the nazi concentration camps sending fake postcards to the relatives of their detainees. If they really believed in what they were doing, they wouldn't try to cover it up. witness protection is because the people helping the police have done something wrong, its honestly the only reason to hide who you are. /s I will give you that there exist multiple reasons for hiding your identity. Now you have the burden of coming up with a reason that applies to every single member of a subreddit that is more likely than "They don't want to be known as people who take creepshots."
They don't want to face XYZ act of punishment achievable with their personal details for an action that is not against the law. And regardless of legality, vigilanteism is not exactly known for proportionate responses.
Its a question of degree here.
|
I'm not creepy enough to post on those places but honestly it's boring to look at... why do so many people dedicate themselves to taking creep pictures? Just going out in public places on a daily basis you'll see hundreds of women wearing revealing clothes, skin tight leggings with g-strings, no bras, etc. You don't need the internet to see that these days, you don't even need to look for it; it just kind of pops up in your face no matter where you go. I see tons of hotties each day just going to work, university or doing my shopping. Granted you can't exactly stare at them for minutes (well, you can I guess), but I definitely don't feel the need to get pictures of the same thing I see on a daily basis. Plus you get to talk to them! Pretty amazing I know. Also, I live in a pretty small town... in huge cities, which I've lived in before, it's even more ridiculous. The problem is these people need to go out more. Don't need to go to a club, just do your groceries and you're bound to see a few barely clothed girls.
Of course, it's pretty sad that wearing revealing clothes is standard these days but that's a story for another time.
|
On October 12 2012 08:32 goldenwitch wrote:
If what they were doing wasn't wrong in their own eyes then why would they be against having their names associated with it? It's like the nazi concentration camps sending fake postcards to the relatives of their detainees. If they really believed in what they were doing, they wouldn't try to cover it up.
This might be something they just did to derp arround. If people make their name, adress etc public it will be the first thing that shows up if someone googles your name.
Would you like to have your family/friends/future kids seeing people calling you a creep or predator or maybe even pedophile? Also, try getting a job if the first impression your employer gets of you (the google search) is that you are a creep, predator etc...
Annonymity on the internet is a beautiful concept. The only people who should be able to violate it is the authorities imo, yet i find it important that the authorities are not able to abuse that power. To be honest; if people find this to be so wrong they should attempt to get it embeded into the law of their respective country.
I belive it is illegal to post pictures of people without their consent in Norway at least.
|
Generally I think these kinds of outrages are out of proportion and misjudged horribly. However since it's targeting reddit I'm all fine with it.
|
What they are doing is quite creepy and I'd rather see it taken down, but publishing the personal information of the Redditors who did it is out of line and rude.
|
Although releasing personal information that can be used to track someone down is definitely worse than taking a picture of someone in public, I without any shame say "fuck them". While not agreeing with it I still will sit here and laugh at the thought of people that on a regular day "expose" others in a way they never wished to be getting angry that they are finally getting exposed, regardless of how much "more extreme" the method of exposing them is.
Here's a thought, if you don't want anyone to know you are doing this and who you are, maybe that's an indicator of how big of a fucking creep you are and how creepy what you are doing is?
|
Feminism to a extreme, one day it will be illegal to see a woman's boobs in the street. Wake up men have watched women in compromising positions since Adam ate the apple and women love it too, if the guy is good looking of course, they only complain when the guy is ugly, period. Not that I watch that crap on the internet, I can go to the streets and see plenty of beatiful women around.
|
I realize that I'm dealing with a forum full of gigantic fucking internet nerds
Probably the only problem with your entire post. You go onto rage by generalizing the entire community? Especially in a derogatory fashion? Common....
"But Samantha (OP note: the creator of the Predditor tumblr) believes that CreepShots is a gateway drug to more dangerous hobbies. Fetishizing non-consent "indicates [that CreepShots posters] don't view women as people, and most will not be satisfied with just that level of violation," she said. "I want to make sure that the people around these men know what they're doing so they can reap social, professional, or legal consequences, and possibly save women from future sexual assault. These men are dangerous."
Though I agree that the process of illegaly photographing another individual should be punished and I have no issue with them being tracked down I highly doubt it requires the buzz word "gateway drug" to be associated with it to spur fear in the minds of ignorant people.
Her entire viewpoint is an assumption and a fallacy, she's making a claim from ignorance where she just makes a conclusion off subjective predetermined characteristics she already came up with. Perhaps it's true but quoting that as any authority on the issue is poorly thought out, especially while leading into an irrational outburst.
TLDR: People who take privacy invading pictures should be punished but this line is grey because in court the definition will have to be set in stone, probably the showing of any underwear etc because frankly taking a picture of a girl from a non-comp. position these days is comprimising just based on the little clothing they're wearing.
OP should stop throwing so much personal bias into his OP and make it so we can have a discussion without his tone being spewed all over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
