|
On October 12 2012 18:02 armada[sb] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 17:57 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 12 2012 17:41 cloneThorN wrote:On October 12 2012 17:14 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 12 2012 17:05 Greentellon wrote:
This subreddit was shut down with blackmail and IRL threats. I'm not a huge advocate of that. We have a legal system for a reason. The actions committed were also done to circumvent the legal system. Unless the legal system can solve that and maybe it potentially/eventually can, then it is often the case that people fall back to fighting fire with fire. It's someone similar to a burglar who gets shot. The whole getting shot is definitely way more serious but does the burglar really deserve sympathy here? I don't even agree with gun ownership but I could care less that the burglar was shot. Theres a difference. If a burglar enters your house, you are in serious danger of getting killed. Having your photo posted on the internet does exactly zero harm to you. Shooting a burglar is self defense, so that is understanable and legal, but circuventing the legal system over a couple of pics is a retarded action, made by even more retarded people. Explain to me how posting a photo of someone on the internet in a very compromising manner does zero harm to that person? Creepshots is not a place your average joe goes to socialize and post neutral photos. The concept of creepshots itself doesn't lend itself to neutrality. It can potentially do zero harm to a person. It can also potentially do massive harm to that person. There are plenty of ways for that to happen and it's not even unreasonable to think they may happen. You say it's retarded to fight back over a "couple of pics". Obviously, these pics aren't just a couple of pics or no one would be complaining. The actions of the creeps in this case are retarded to begin with so I wouldn't even bother defending them. If you're really fine with people doing things like this, would you be ok with the same people posting a picture of you onto a site like this where you can potentially be recognized, where you have no control over it, and possibly have it damage your reputation or lead to something worse? The old "two wrongs make a right" mentality, eh?
No, not necessarily. I don't encourage people to fight fire with fire. But if an arsonist gets burnt, I'm not going to cry over it.
On October 12 2012 18:01 Tuczniak wrote:
There are shooting burglars on the street. I consider them way more threat to internet community than those creepy guys.
You can find worse things in virtually all cases. Doesn't justify, absolve, or even relieve what those creepy guys are doing. You seem to be saying that there are probably bigger problems to handle than to focus on smaller problems like these creeps. However, that is like saying everyone should be concentrating on and only on the most important issues. Obviously, it doesn't work like that in real life and many problems are dealt with in parallel.
|
On October 12 2012 16:52 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
Am I evil for not seeing anything wrong here?
It's a weird fetish. It's not illegal. No one is getting hurt.
Now looking up their personal info then, that is fucking creepy and childish.
Erhm but it is? It's against the law to publish my portrait without my permission unless you have a justified reason. (Article 21 of the Dutch 'Auteurswet' or Author's Law; also Article 8 of the European Treaty of Human Rights).
Before you ask: Simply wanting to look at strangers is not a justified reason.
|
Okay, but there's a difference between a picture being posted without personal information (telephone number, address) and not maliciously, and posting someone's personal information with the intent of them being harmed in some way, shape, or form.
On that note, however, I think it would be funny if people found out who these creepshotters are and limited their "vengeance" to taking creepy candid pictures of them. However, that would require their information being handed out and that's pretty much opening the box for any number of things to happen to them.
|
good riddance.
if people want to be sick fucks, they can do it elsewhere. even though reddit prides itself with being a content filter for the various niche communities out there, it doesn't mean they are not responsible for giving a platform for their fuckers and their disgusting activities.
|
On October 12 2012 18:10 Wroshe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 16:52 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
Am I evil for not seeing anything wrong here?
It's a weird fetish. It's not illegal. No one is getting hurt.
Now looking up their personal info then, that is fucking creepy and childish. Erhm but it is? It's against the law to publish my portrait without my permission unless you have a justified reason. (Article 21 of the Dutch 'Auteurswet' or Author's Law; also Article 8 of the European Treaty of Human Rights). Before you ask: Simply wanting to look at strangers is not a justified reason.
if you're in a public place, then people can take pictures of you. that's like saying on the news when the news caster is standing in front of hundreds of people on the sidewalk in new york or whatever big city it's illegal since they don't have your permission.
|
On October 12 2012 18:11 armada[sb] wrote:
Okay, but there's a difference between a picture being posted without personal information (telephone number, address) and not maliciously, and posting someone's personal information with the intent of them being harmed in some way, shape, or form.
On that note, however, I think it would be funny if people found out who these creepshotters are and limited their "vengeance" to taking creepy candid pictures of them. However, that would require their information being handed out and that's pretty much opening the box for any number of things to happen to them.
Most would agree that sharing a neutral photo on a site like facebook would be fine. However, substitute facebook with something like creepshots and now the context has completely changed. Intention is a really gray area. For example, you may not intend for an anonymous photo to cause harm to a person but that doesn't exclude the possibility that it can. The photo can be recognized by someone and then who can predict what will happen then? Can the responsible creep guarantee the privacy/safety of that person? If you do it knowing full well that it has a reasonable chance of harming someone, then I would argue that you're not so innocent anymore. In that regard, the people who intended the creepers harm merely just took a more direct and transparent approach.
|
Just finished browsing through Reddit. I can't believe that there are so many people out there who are willing to defend perverts touching their penises to photos taken of women without their knowledge
Uggh
|
On October 12 2012 18:35 DigitalDevil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 18:11 armada[sb] wrote:
Okay, but there's a difference between a picture being posted without personal information (telephone number, address) and not maliciously, and posting someone's personal information with the intent of them being harmed in some way, shape, or form.
On that note, however, I think it would be funny if people found out who these creepshotters are and limited their "vengeance" to taking creepy candid pictures of them. However, that would require their information being handed out and that's pretty much opening the box for any number of things to happen to them. Most would agree that sharing a neutral photo on a site like facebook would be fine. However, substitute facebook with something like creepshots and now the context has completely changed. Intention is a really gray area. For example, you may not intend for an anonymous photo to cause harm to a person but that doesn't exclude the possibility that it can. The photo can be recognized by someone and then who can predict what will happen then? Can the responsible creep guarantee the privacy/safety of that person? If you do it knowing full well that it has a reasonable chance of harming someone, then I would argue that you're not so innocent anymore. In that regard, the people who intended the creepers harm merely just took a more direct and transparent approach.
I don't know much about creepshots, in fact, today is the first I've ever heard of it. From what I've gathered, it's not about upskirts or anything like that, it's more about candid pictures of attractive women. I just don't see where you're going with the "the photo can be recognized by someone" part. If it's a photo of a girls clevage taken without her permission, what harm will that do to her reputation? She didn't authorize it, in fact, I feel like most people would sympathize with her. As far as someone being recognized, if someone sees your photo on the internet, and recognizes you, they already have the means to creep/stalk/hurt you as they already know who you are and possibly where you live or work.
And again, you're going with this "well, they're doing something wrong, so I'm okay with someone doing something wrong to them" statement. I don't see how you can justify this. Yes, it's wrong what they're doing, but it's also wrong to cause another person harm, regardless of how direct and transparent your approach is. If this is a matter of legality, then it should be handled through the proper channels. If it's not illegal, then there's really not much you can do short of being butthurt about it.
|
On October 12 2012 18:42 wozzot wrote:
Just finished browsing through Reddit. I can't believe that there are so many people out there who are willing to defend perverts touching their penises to photos taken of women without their knowledge
Uggh
I'm not trying to defend these people, they're perverts and what they're doing is wrong. However, I think it's also wrong to go posting someone's information on the internet and saying "Oh, well, whatever happens, happens!". Adrian Chen is just a firestarter, and I can't really agree with the way that SRS behaves themselves either. They're not wrong in a perverted manner like the people on creepshots, but they are wrong in a possibly dangerous manner in that you can't guarantee that someone isn't going to exact revenge.
I don't know the law, and if what creepshots is all about is illegal, then there has to be a way to deal with it that doesn't put people's wellbeing at risk.
|
I don't agree with the sub-reddit however it's like saying we should shut down all sites showing pictures of girls from facebook, you can't single out one place. If you want to get rid of it you have to be unbiased and remove it from all sources. Anyone who wants that stuff can find it easily on google anyway.
|
On October 12 2012 18:42 armada[sb] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 18:35 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 12 2012 18:11 armada[sb] wrote:
Okay, but there's a difference between a picture being posted without personal information (telephone number, address) and not maliciously, and posting someone's personal information with the intent of them being harmed in some way, shape, or form.
On that note, however, I think it would be funny if people found out who these creepshotters are and limited their "vengeance" to taking creepy candid pictures of them. However, that would require their information being handed out and that's pretty much opening the box for any number of things to happen to them. Most would agree that sharing a neutral photo on a site like facebook would be fine. However, substitute facebook with something like creepshots and now the context has completely changed. Intention is a really gray area. For example, you may not intend for an anonymous photo to cause harm to a person but that doesn't exclude the possibility that it can. The photo can be recognized by someone and then who can predict what will happen then? Can the responsible creep guarantee the privacy/safety of that person? If you do it knowing full well that it has a reasonable chance of harming someone, then I would argue that you're not so innocent anymore. In that regard, the people who intended the creepers harm merely just took a more direct and transparent approach. I don't know much about creepshots, in fact, today is the first I've ever heard of it. From what I've gathered, it's not about upskirts or anything like that, it's more about candid pictures of attractive women. I just don't see where you're going with the "the photo can be recognized by someone" part. If it's a photo of a girls clevage taken without her permission, what harm will that do to her reputation? She didn't authorize it, in fact, I feel like most people would sympathize with her. As far as someone being recognized, if someone sees your photo on the internet, and recognizes you, they already have the means to creep/stalk/hurt you as they already know who you are and possibly where you live or work. And again, you're going with this "well, they're doing something wrong, so I'm okay with someone doing something wrong to them" statement. I don't see how you can justify this. Yes, it's wrong what they're doing, but it's also wrong to cause another person harm, regardless of how direct and transparent your approach is. If this is a matter of legality, then it should be handled through the proper channels. If it's not illegal, then there's really not much you can do short of being butthurt about it.
The degree of severity is relative and it may not seem like a big deal to you, but to some, the idea of creepshots itself is disgusting. With regard to the recognized by someone, let's illustrate it with an example. A person who hates you stumbles onto the photo of you on a site like this and decides to let everyone at school know. Probably many but not everyone is going to sympathize with you. Hell, with immature little kids, it's often even the case that the victim gets teased and bullied. Ever seen internet memes?
I am saying that it's wrong to do harm period. But if a wronged person gets wronged them self, I am not going to waste time sympathizing. I'm not justifying what the creep hunters did. I'm merely saying whatever, not worth my time.
This issue came about _because_ both the creep hunters and the creepers themselves are able to dance around the legal issues. I am all for having the law settle this if it can. In this case, it seems like it didn't. If you then go on to say that if it's not illegal, then you just have to take it, then you shouldn't have a problem with what the creep hunters are doing. They are not doing anything illegal. Possible derivative negative actions may be performed by the result of their decision just as how possible bad outcomes may result for the victims of the creepers. Accountability is a double edged sword.
|
I don't like SRS much - they banned me from their subreddits after I made one post there to correct some lies about Destiny :o - but they're right about this. This is like exactly what is meant by rape culture, you turn all women everywhere into potential targets and frame all of gender relations as men who are wolves and women who are sheep. If someone grows up in a culture where this sort of thing is normalized, perhaps he'll wonder about taking the next step, which would be to rape a girl. So yeah, I believe in the gateway to rape theory, even if only a very small percentage of those involved in this would ever actually have the nerve to act on it. Still higher than the average of the population I bet.
|
Immature kids is a good point, didn't think of that. I have trouble seeing many other examples, but I had trouble seeing that one.
I see where you're coming from about not caring, and as long as you acknowledge that it's wrong then you're completely in the right as far as I'm concerned.
I'm pretty sure (but not certain) that it IS illegal to post somebody's address online. Invasion of privacy with malicious intent? I'm pretty sure that were Adrian Chen to post this jagoff's address online, and something were to happen to him, Chen could be held liable. So I wouldn't exactly say the creep hunters are exactly dancing around the law so much as disregarding it entirely. Like I said, I'm not sure, so if someone else knows for certain let me know, but my google-fu says that it is.
|
On October 12 2012 19:11 armada[sb] wrote:
Immature kids is a good point, didn't think of that. I have trouble seeing many other examples, but I had trouble seeing that one.
I see where you're coming from about not caring, and as long as you acknowledge that it's wrong then you're completely in the right as far as I'm concerned.
I'm pretty sure (but not certain) that it IS illegal to post somebody's address online. Invasion of privacy with malicious intent? I'm pretty sure that were Adrian Chen to post this jagoff's address online, and something were to happen to him, Chen could be held liable. So I wouldn't exactly say the creep hunters are exactly dancing around the law so much as disregarding it entirely. Like I said, I'm not sure, so if someone else knows for certain let me know, but my google-fu says that it is.
Honestly, I am not an expert on law either. However, I feel debating whether either is a legal issue or not doesn't make either any less accountable. I think we both can agree that the actions on either side are wrong, maybe one more than the other. I'm more concerned with people who attempt to justify the actions of the creeps as if they did no wrong and are a victim of wrongdoing.
|
On October 12 2012 19:31 DigitalDevil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 19:11 armada[sb] wrote:
Immature kids is a good point, didn't think of that. I have trouble seeing many other examples, but I had trouble seeing that one.
I see where you're coming from about not caring, and as long as you acknowledge that it's wrong then you're completely in the right as far as I'm concerned.
I'm pretty sure (but not certain) that it IS illegal to post somebody's address online. Invasion of privacy with malicious intent? I'm pretty sure that were Adrian Chen to post this jagoff's address online, and something were to happen to him, Chen could be held liable. So I wouldn't exactly say the creep hunters are exactly dancing around the law so much as disregarding it entirely. Like I said, I'm not sure, so if someone else knows for certain let me know, but my google-fu says that it is. Honestly, I am not an expert on law either. However, I feel debating whether either is a legal issue or not doesn't make either any less accountable. I think we both can agree that the actions on either side are wrong, maybe one more than the other. I'm more concerned with people who attempt to justify the actions of the creeps as if they did no wrong and are a victim of wrongdoing.
Agreed, just two groups of douchebags being douchey in different fashions.
|
Had to comment on this:
"So I'm doing something that's technically legal, but will result in consequences for their actions. These fuckers think they can get away with it scot free, which is one of the reasons why sexual violence is so prevalent around the world."
This is the disgusting face of modern feminism, she realises she has very little to condone these guys for, so she just adds a comment about sexual violence out of fucking nowhere.
I just don't understand this, taking pictures of women in public and masturbating to them is 100% completely fucking harmless, the gateway arguments can be said about anything, you could also say that it leads people away from it because they are now satisfied with pictures.
This can be compared to all the "How women are pictured in video games" crap, modern feminists simply have nothing to actually complain about, so they have to grab issues out of nothing. Use some energy on real problems, like how women are being treated in third world countries (Yes, i know this is a cliché argument, but in this game it's completely relevant), or how they're held down by Islam, or war crimes involving torture and rape, which are happening daily.
|
On October 12 2012 19:55 Bagonad wrote:
Had to comment on this:
"So I'm doing something that's technically legal, but will result in consequences for their actions. These fuckers think they can get away with it scot free, which is one of the reasons why sexual violence is so prevalent around the world."
This is the disgusting face of modern feminism, she realises she has very little to condone these guys for, so she just adds a comment about sexual violence out of fucking nowhere.
I just don't understand this, taking pictures of women in public and masturbating to them is 100% completely fucking harmless, the gateway arguments can be said about anything, you could also say that it leads people away from it because they are now satisfied with pictures.
This can be compared to all the "How women are pictured in video games" crap, modern feminists simply have nothing to actually complain about, so they have to grab issues out of nothing. Use some energy on real problems, like how women are being treated in third world countries (Yes, i know this is a cliché argument, but in this game it's completely relevant), or how they're held down by Islam, or war crimes involving torture and rape, which are happening daily.
Do you even live on planet earth? Did you, by any chance, play even the first 20 minutes of duke nukem forever?
I'm not about to go out and burn my bra or anything, but to say that "modern feminists have nothing to complain about" is a bit of a stretch.
I condone what that tumblr blog was doing. If you are taking a photo of a girl in the context of putting it on a site/forum that has "creeper" in the name, you should be willing to subject yourself to reverse-creeping. Jesus.
|
On October 12 2012 11:08 Corrosive wrote:
never understood why reddit doesn't have rules like
1. no stupid ass subreddits
2. no cp
3. no SRS
1. subjective, "stupid ass subreddits"? How would they have that as a rule
2. CP is banned... Do you even know what you're talking about?
3. http://ohinternet.com/ShitRedditSays SRS seems fine to me?
So basically all you've said is
1. CP should be banned, and it is...
|
On October 12 2012 20:28 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 11:08 Corrosive wrote:
never understood why reddit doesn't have rules like
1. no stupid ass subreddits
2. no cp
3. no SRS 1. subjective, "stupid ass subreddits"? How would they have that as a rule 2. CP is banned... Do you even know what you're talking about? 3. http://ohinternet.com/ShitRedditSays SRS seems fine to me? So basically all you've said is 1. CP should be banned, and it is...
SRS seems fine until they start "doxxing" people. It's one thing to point out hypocrisy or bigotry, it's another thing to put people's shit out there. It's wrong no matter who does it.
Not to mention they're pretty quick to throw down the ban hammer on anyone who disagrees with them.
They exist to point out that people act like assholes on the internet? Who the fuck cares?
|
Technology allowed us to have a wider peeping hole. Hardly shocking, these things happened before on a smaller scale, same as pirating and other controversial things many people did before Internet was invented, as opposed to harder stuff like actual raping, murders, or shoplifting which are only done by very few those i believe did not really sky rocketed after internet became a popular medium.
Simply put ease of access became a problem. And this touched many areas, for example that girl who posted public party on facebook and 50k people went to the town.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
