|
On the train. In line at the pharmacy. Even in class. You really never know when someone might snap a picture of you, add a sleazy comment and post it to a highly trafficked site like Reddit to be ogled at by strangers. Don't believe it? It actually happens a lot. CreepShots, a forum on Reddit devoted to photos taken of women without their knowledge or consent, was recently embroiled in controversy after a teacher was fired for posting a picture of his underage student. At this time, the sub-Reddit CreepShots has been banned, as has an alternate subReddit, CreepyShots. However CreepSquad, another comparable site, has already cropped up in its place. Now, a new Tumblr blog hopes to give creepsters a taste of their own medicine. Predditors -- a play on 'Redditors,' a nickname for users of the site -- posts personal information about CreepShots submitters, including photos, Facebook pages, marital status, location and occupation, and any other identifying details found by sleuthing on the Internet. According to Jezebel, the creator of the site is a 25-year old woman who wants posters to be held accountable for their creepiness. "Reddit's defense of [CreepShots] is that it's 'technically legal,'" she said. "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." The site has named 36 Reddit users since it launched on Sept. 29th. But some people see a bit of hypocrisy in fighting fire with fire. One Reddit user, who did not want to be named, said he thought labeling users as "sexual predators" was unfair. "There is a line in what a sexual predator is, and taking a photo of a hot girl in public is NOT that," he said. "Creepy, yes." UPDATE: Tumblr has apparently taken down the Predditors blog. Links to the Tumblr account were down on Thursday morning. Users are sounding off about the presumed takedown. You can read their reactions here. UPDATE: Reddit and the website Gawker are now sparring over CreepShots. The subReddit r/Politics has banned links to all Gawker content, alleging that Gawker journalist Adrian Chen was threatening to make the identify of the CreepShots moderator public. Here's how a politics moderator explained the decision: Show nested quote +As some of you may know, a prominent member of Reddit's community, Violentacrez, deleted his account recently. This was as a result of a 'journalist' seeking out his personal information and threatening to publish it, which would have a significant impact on his life. You can read more about it here.
As moderators, we feel that this type of behavior is completely intolerable. We volunteer our time on Reddit to make it a better place for the users, and should not be harassed and threatened for that. We should all be afraid of the threat of having our personal information investigated and spread around the internet if someone disagrees with you. Reddit prides itself on having a subreddit for everything, and no matter how much anyone may disapprove of what another user subscribes to, that is never a reason to threaten them. As a result, the moderators of /r/politics have chosen to disallow links from the Gawker network until action is taken to correct this serious lack of ethics and integrity. We thank you for your understanding. At least 10 other Reddit sub-forums have followed suit. Redditors are not letting CreepShots go without a fight. On the new CreepShots forum, CreepSquad, users are warned to "please stay safe" by using an alternative account to post photos. Show nested quote +To everyone else who is a member here, all I can emphasise is... please stay safe. When posting here, we strongly suggest that you use an alternative account or, at the very least, delete personally identifiable information about you that you may have posted in your comments. You still aren't doing anything illegal.
The Moderators may also take a harder line for your safety. Whenever we can, we will check your profiles for any comments that may personally identify you. You will have your posts removed, you will be banned, and then you will be sent a message asking you to create a new account so you can post here. This is only for your safety.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/11/predditors-tumblr-creepshots-reddit_n_1955897.html
The tumblr in question was accessible until earlier today, but now it asks for a password, presumably to avoid getting more attention after already being shut down once.
Edit: I'm going to add this because I think this point needs to be addressed:
I would just ask whoever is in support of this CreepShots continuing to exist to consider this point:
"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."
I'm sure some of you have girlfriends. All of you have moms. Some of you have sisters and nieces. Do you really want them, or any women, to have to go through the stress of wondering whether someone in public is going to take a shot of them in a compromising position, then trade it like a baseball card with hundreds of other faceless goons to masturbate to? Along with possible enabling a sexual assault because someone takes it too far?
On October 12 2012 07:22 Stijx wrote:
While it does seem wrong to allow people to post this, I don't think an appropriate response is to real-life witch-hunt the people doing it. These "creeps" can not be paralleled with sexual predators, and certainly don't deserve any violent real-world ramifications for their actions.
Putting pictures, albeit very creepy ones, on the internet of men / women to be appreciated is not the same as putting up pictures of people to be shunned or, in the worst cases, attacked.
I'm glad tumblr took the page down.
Read this post, then consider this point about "creeps" being associated with sexual predators. Many of them probably are, and we just haven't figured it out yet.
Take this fine example:
"One afternoon in late September, Coweta County Sheriff Investigator Jason Fetner asked Christopher Bailey, a 35-year-old substitute teacher at East Coweta High, to meet with him regarding a school theft. But when Bailey arrived, Fetner told him the real reason for their meeting: he knew that Bailey had been posting photos of his students — "Hot senior girl in one of my classes," read one charming caption — on the subreddit r/CreepShots, some of which had been viewed thousands of times.
Most of Bailey's CreepShots contributions were relatively "innocent" (for example, you couldn't see the senior girl's underwear) and therefore legal, but the content Fetner subsequently found on Bailey's cellphone — including multiple texts and nude photos that he sent to girls as young as 16 — were not, and police are now pursuing charges. But how did Fetner know that the substitute teacher with a clean record was a secret sexual predator? Thanks to a tip from a group of anonymous Redditors who are sick of seeing the CreepShots community gleefully post teen upskirt photo after teen upskirt photo while telling the "internet morality police" to "fuck off" and stop ruining their fun."
|
is there anything reddit doesnt have? pictures of underage kids, creepshots...cant picture why that site is so popular..Glad to hear they are shutting stuff down.
|
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..Glad to hear they are shutting stuff down.
You said it yourself; reddit has something for everyone, and with the good comes the inevitable bad. Reddit has good sides, trust me, if you know where to find them.
|
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
|
On October 12 2012 06:19 TheRealArtemis wrote:
cant picture why that site is so popular..
On October 12 2012 06:19 TheRealArtemis wrote:
is there anything reddit doesnt have?
I think you answered your own question. I agree though, it's good that the site is moderated to some extent at least.
|
i know its weird as fuck doing things like this, but this is just one of those things which you are gonna struggle to stop. they can shut down sites and new ones will pop up every day. wild goose chase forever.
|
|
|
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..Glad to hear they are shutting stuff down.
You just described the internet!
|
Calgary25972 Posts
The internet is getting really scary and creepy.
|
I don't know which to regard with more suspicion: the weirdos themselves or the odd vigilante resistance that defends their boards.
|
|
|
On October 12 2012 06:33 Chill wrote:
The internet is getting really scary and creepy.
Its more scary and creepy people who starts to understand how they can use the internet... Well thats fucking weird. But thats it.
|
What a fucked up hobby.
"Hey Bill, so what do you do for fun on weekends?"
"I fish, play basketball, videogames, ya know, usual stuff. What do you do Tim?"
"I take pictures of random women and post them online"
"..."
|
I guess this is what happens when young people gets to dominate an area of society, which the internet is. I'm not pointing fingers to anyone, I'm pretty young myself, just saying there's a disproportionate amount of immature and disrespectful people on the internet, and I guess that's due to the average age. These issues will probably solve themselves as time goes by and the crowd grows up, hopefully before governments strikes down on the internet through excessive law-making.
|
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.
|
The Japanese are feeling pretty hipster right about now.
|
|
|
On October 12 2012 06:50 Monochromatic wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On October 12 2012 06:56 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Why do we keep discussing reddit on teamliquid? I think we have enough threads about reddit and their subforums. I put forward a motion, that from now on people can discuss reddit on reddit.
this isn't the SC2 general forum, or the TeamLiquid SC2 team forum, this is the general forum where people tend to post about stuff not relating directly to TeamLiquid
if you want to PM a mod or admin about getting the purpose of this forum changed, be my guest.
|
On October 12 2012 06:50 Monochromatic wrote:Show nested quote +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.
When in public you are snapped hundreds of times per day by CCTV, you are still anonymous. Agree that there is a big difference between posting a pic of some anonymous girls ass compared with posting personal information about someone.
Who gave these Predittors the right to give out personal information on the internet without permission? I think you will find that is illegal where as taking a picture of someone in public.... perfectly legal in most cases. unethical and immoral? well thats a personal thing but no reason to have your personal information given out by some random person on the internet.
If the government gave out this info, well thats up to them, they have actual authority..... but a private citizen has no right to do it without permission, moral authority doesn't exist in law... invasion of privacy does.
|
The more subbreddits like this one shut down the better imo
|
Next you're going to tell me that people are bitching in the SOTG thread.
Seriously though, the internet has always been a creepy place. While this is a site I'd never go to, people need to educate themselves on shit like 4chan and their worship of Boxy from a few years ago. The type of crazy that the Internet is capable of goes well beyond some creepy photos. People need to gain some perspective.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending this creeptastic behavior. I would never do anything like this, and if one of my friends posted to a subReddit like that, I'd make sure he knew exactly how fucking creepy of a human being he was. Alls I'm saying is that there are much creepier people for that Predditor woman to be going after.
|
On October 12 2012 06:56 BlueLanterna wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
On October 12 2012 07:03 emythrel wrote:Show nested quote +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. When in public you are snapped hundreds of times per day by CCTV, you are still anonymous. Agree that there is a big difference between posting a pic of some anonymous girls ass compared with posting personal information about someone. Who gave these Predittors the right to give out personal information on the internet without permission? I think you will find that is illegal where as taking a picture of someone in public.... perfectly legal in most cases. unethical and immoral? well thats a personal thing but no reason to have your personal information given out by some random person on the internet. If the government gave out this info, well thats up to them, they have actual authority..... but a private citizen has no right to do it without permission, moral authority doesn't exist in law... invasion of privacy does.
all of the information was publicly available, so your point is moot.
|
On October 12 2012 06:50 Monochromatic wrote:Show nested quote +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.
This is the sole reason why you stay off reddit? Might as well stay off the Internet if your reason is because there are creeps. Wait, there are also child molesters, sexual abusers, rapists, and people who take up skirt pictures in the ethnic food aisle? Better stay away from outside too.
|
On October 12 2012 07:07 emythrel wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
I don't even care about this whole matter, besides I think creepshots is allowed and should be allowed. Anyone trying to protest or stop them is out of agreement with me, but glhf with that
|
On October 12 2012 06:21 marttorn wrote:Show nested quote +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..Glad to hear they are shutting stuff down. You said it yourself; reddit has something for everyone, and with the good comes the inevitable bad. Reddit has good sides, trust me, if you know where to find them.
I don't trust you.
|
While it does seem wrong to allow people to post this, I don't think an appropriate response is to real-life witch-hunt the people doing it. These "creeps" can not be paralleled with sexual predators, and certainly don't deserve any violent real-world ramifications for their actions.
Putting pictures, albeit very creepy ones, on the internet of men / women to be appreciated is not the same as putting up pictures of people to be shunned or, in the worst cases, attacked.
I'm glad tumblr took the page down.
|
I would just ask whoever is in support of this CreepShots continuing to exist to consider this point:
" But Samantha 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."
I realize that I'm dealing with a forum full of gigantic fucking internet nerds, but I'm sure some of you have girlfriends. All of you have moms. Some of you have sisters and nieces. Do you really want them, or any women, to have to go through the stress of wondering whether someone in public is going to take a shot of them in a compromising position, then trade it like a baseball card with hundreds of other faceless goons to masturbate to? Along with possible enabling a sexual assault because someone takes it too far?
On October 12 2012 07:22 Stijx wrote:
While it does seem wrong to allow people to post this, I don't think an appropriate response is to real-life witch-hunt the people doing it. These "creeps" can not be paralleled with sexual predators, and certainly don't deserve any violent real-world ramifications for their actions.
Putting pictures, albeit very creepy ones, on the internet of men / women to be appreciated is not the same as putting up pictures of people to be shunned or, in the worst cases, attacked.
I'm glad tumblr took the page down.
Read this post, then consider this point about "creeps" being associated with sexual predators. Many of them probably are, and we just haven't figured it out yet.
Take this fine example:
"One afternoon in late September, Coweta County Sheriff Investigator Jason Fetner asked Christopher Bailey, a 35-year-old substitute teacher at East Coweta High, to meet with him regarding a school theft. But when Bailey arrived, Fetner told him the real reason for their meeting: he knew that Bailey had been posting photos of his students — "Hot senior girl in one of my classes," read one charming caption — on the subreddit r/CreepShots, some of which had been viewed thousands of times.
Most of Bailey's CreepShots contributions were relatively "innocent" (for example, you couldn't see the senior girl's underwear) and therefore legal, but the content Fetner subsequently found on Bailey's cellphone — including multiple texts and nude photos that he sent to girls as young as 16 — were not, and police are now pursuing charges. But how did Fetner know that the substitute teacher with a clean record was a secret sexual predator? Thanks to a tip from a group of anonymous Redditors who are sick of seeing the CreepShots community gleefully post teen upskirt photo after teen upskirt photo while telling the "internet morality police" to "fuck off" and stop ruining their fun."
User was temp banned for this post.
|
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?
|
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?
Little less anonymous and a little more mainstream accepted.
And people all keep making it harder and harder to perv on women without them knowing. What a cruel world.
|
On October 12 2012 07:10 Positronic wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
On October 12 2012 07:04 Ettick wrote:
The more subbreddits like this one shut down the better imo
it''s just a waste of time new ones pop up just as fast.
|
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:
When you get on reddit for the first time, the "front-page" simply consists of the top posts from all of the subreddits that are SFW. Subreddits, also called subs or just reddits, are miniature forums able to be created by anyone. They are like little fiefdoms, and mods can ban, close threads, and do other things there. Now, the most popular ones are the most easily-digested and the ones with the widest appeal. Funny is probably the biggest subreddit, and so a lot of its posts get to the front page quite often. Other reddits, like Roguelikes, aren't as active and maybe have 3 threads per day.
So subs can be made for anything, from creepshots to cars to designer horse-brushes. The only universally banned subject is child porn. Well, originally. A while back a sub called jailbait was also closed because it sexualized minors and was causing a stir in the media. Now, creepshots is also gone.
The idea is really good and I like it. Games, circlejerk, roguelikes, and dwarffortress are my most frequented subs. There are also sports subs, other games subs, politics subs, religious subs, porn subs... the list goes on. The actions of some users of the site don't reflect on the site at all, really. 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.
|
On October 12 2012 07:36 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +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
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
|
Just curious about where you would draw the line on what should/should not be on a site like reddit. "Creepy" is pretty subjective. Google maps will put a picture of you on the internet even if it is creepy, they would just blur out your face.
Overall reddit seems to have very loose rules on what is allowed and takes a very wide view of free speech. Even if they drew a clear line in the sand like they did with banning sexual content involving minors, people will try to get as close as possible to that line and people are going to get offended by it.
Try replacing creepy with offensive, should a site take down something that some people find offensive if it was produced legally?
|
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.
|
God I hate reddit
...but I also love it so much.......help...please
|
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.
Nothing is going to make it illegal, however the point of making the tumblr about it is probably to find out if this kind of thing would continue to happen when the people taking the photos were identified, and expose whoever is taking advantage of their position to take more pictures (the pedophile in the OP).
|
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.
|
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.
|
On October 12 2012 08:56 eg9 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
there is no "derp" around in real life. what you do has consequences,if what you do involves others then deal with what happens to you.
and we all know that law is a very shallow thing in the web. the easiest and fairest thing to do is fight fire with fire.
also honestly, the idea of a stalking pervert that secretly takes photos of others,puts em on the web and then gets mad when people link that action to pictures/info he himself willingly put in the web (facebook) is so hilarious to me.
|
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?
4chan is a lot funnier and doesn't have karmawhores
|
On October 12 2012 09:03 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +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....
I edited it out of OP since you're the second person to bring it up, perhaps I should have put in parenthesis "(I am one)".
On October 12 2012 09:03 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +"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.
Of course the line is grey, and of course this issue may never be solved if the mission is continue to let people enjoy the same degree of freedom that they have now. It's a very difficult issue and hence I never made any statements regarding this -and-that should be outlawed or forbidden.
I did raise the fact that out of respect for some of the people you love and care about (who would not appreciate knowing a stranger is taking suggestive photos for their or others' enjoyment, unless they have a voyeur fetish) who could be affected by this, we should rail against the idea of a mainstream website like Reddit with so many users and so many good qualities having places where people like this can congregate. It makes it seem socially acceptable.
And it obviously attracts REAL sexual predators. There is nothing biased about that.
edit: editsss
|
I found the Predditors far creepier. Their intentions are clear. They want people to know this info about these people so other people can do things to them.
Also, I'm not sure people who have been excited to see a paparazzi photo have adequate standing to criticize.
|
On October 12 2012 08:50 Positronic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 08:19 jdseemoreglass wrote: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 Show nested quote +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
As I pointed out earlier, the age of consent in Georgia is 16. You're not picking a relevant fight on this point.
|
On October 12 2012 09:20 Ettick 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? 4chan is a lot funnier and doesn't have karmawhores
it has tripfags instead
|
On October 12 2012 09:30 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 08:50 Positronic wrote:On October 12 2012 08:19 jdseemoreglass wrote: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 As I pointed out earlier, the age of consent in Georgia is 16. You're not picking a relevant fight on this point.
Maybe in terms of the actual law yes, but I conceded that point. Believe it or not, I don't really ascribe to the idea of just setting an age on when it's okay to have sex and when it's not and having everything be called "normal" if it's after that age, in my honest opinion once you reach age 21 you're a creeper if you're with a 16 year old and worse if you're older. I still call 'em pedos if they're dating 14-16 year olds when you're way beyond drinking age, don't really care what each individual country's laws are personally.
|
On October 12 2012 09:20 Positronic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 09:03 NeMeSiS3 wrote: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.... I edited it out of OP since you're the second person to bring it up, perhaps I should have put in parenthesis "(I am one)". Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 09:03 NeMeSiS3 wrote:"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. Of course the line is grey, and of course this issue may never be solved if the mission is continue to let people enjoy the same degree of freedom that they have now. It's a very difficult issue and hence I never made any statements regarding this -and-that should be outlawed or forbidden. I did raise the fact that out of respect for some of the people you love and care about (who would not appreciate knowing a stranger is taking suggestive photos for their or others' enjoyment, unless they have a voyeur fetish) who could be affected by this, we should rail against the idea of a mainstream website like Reddit with so many users and so many good qualities having places where people like this can congregate. It makes it seem socially acceptable. And it obviously attracts REAL sexual predators. There is nothing biased about that. edit: editsss
Yes it attracts predators, and so does the Jon Stewart show because they enjoy his comedy. Attracting predators and being a gateway to anything are two totally different terms.
All I was saying is that your reasoning is why family members of a murdered son/daughter aren't permitted to be the judge and executioner. Irrational emotions are a very tedious and subjective thing thus using "if it was your mother/sister/cousin" is a poor argument in general.
|
On October 12 2012 09:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 09:20 Positronic wrote:On October 12 2012 09:03 NeMeSiS3 wrote: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.... I edited it out of OP since you're the second person to bring it up, perhaps I should have put in parenthesis "(I am one)". On October 12 2012 09:03 NeMeSiS3 wrote:"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. Of course the line is grey, and of course this issue may never be solved if the mission is continue to let people enjoy the same degree of freedom that they have now. It's a very difficult issue and hence I never made any statements regarding this -and-that should be outlawed or forbidden. I did raise the fact that out of respect for some of the people you love and care about (who would not appreciate knowing a stranger is taking suggestive photos for their or others' enjoyment, unless they have a voyeur fetish) who could be affected by this, we should rail against the idea of a mainstream website like Reddit with so many users and so many good qualities having places where people like this can congregate. It makes it seem socially acceptable. And it obviously attracts REAL sexual predators. There is nothing biased about that. edit: editsss Yes it attracts predators, and so does the Jon Stewart show because they enjoy his comedy. Attracting predators and being a gateway to anything are two totally different terms. All I was saying is that your reasoning is why family members of a murdered son/daughter aren't permitted to be the judge and executioner. Irrational emotions are a very tedious and subjective thing thus using "if it was your mother/sister/cousin" is a poor argument in general.
I'm not really sure I get the Daily Show joke/analogy.
Of course, you're right, I am making the assumption that one loves their sister/mother/cousin, and wouldn't want to see their body exploited by total stranger and that activity promoted on a major website
|
On October 12 2012 09:41 Positronic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 09:30 oBlade wrote:On October 12 2012 08:50 Positronic wrote:On October 12 2012 08:19 jdseemoreglass wrote: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 As I pointed out earlier, the age of consent in Georgia is 16. You're not picking a relevant fight on this point. Maybe in terms of the actual law yes, but I conceded that point. Believe it or not, I don't really ascribe to the idea of just setting an age on when it's okay to have sex and when it's not and having everything be called "normal" if it's after that age,
Okay, that's a reasonable position to have.
once you reach age 21 you're a creeper if you're with a 16 year old and worse if you're older. I still call 'em pedos if they're dating 14-16 year olds when you're way beyond drinking age, don't really care what each individual country's laws are personally.
I still call 'em pedos if they're dating 14-16 year olds when you're way beyond drinking age, don't really care what each individual country's laws are personally.
Nobody has been talking about 14-16 year olds. You're obscuring the point here. You called the guy a pedophile because some stuff in his phone goes down to 16 year olds. By both the psychological definition of pedophilia (prepubescents) or the social one (below age of consent), he doesn't qualify for pedophilia. You're now resorting to "well I call him that anyway because fuck being correct." You may have a problem with pedophiles. You may have a problem with what this guy did. That doesn't make this teacher a pedophile.
There are many interesting issues associated with pedophilia, like kidnapping, human trafficking, child sex tourism, the rights of rehabilitated people and the rights of parents, the rights of children not to be raped and photographed, but also their rights to give some form of sexual consent, social development in abusive families... however, the issue at hand here is not on this list. That is, the issue of pedophilia's is such a far proxy to this discussion that if it were a 2rax, it wouldn't hit before I had colossi out.
|
On October 12 2012 09:20 Ettick 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? 4chan is a lot funnier and doesn't have karmawhores
Honestly I really come to love reddit for their medium to small subreddits. Stuff like r/League or r/DotA2 is too big for my taste but stuff like r/audioengineering is fun as hell. r/IAMA has awesome people in there lot of the time as well.
It kind of depends, the whole "karmawhoring" system has huge benefits and flaws.
|
"But Samantha (OP note: the creator of the Predditor tumblr) believes that CreepShots is a gateway drug to more dangerous hobbies.
THE ENTIRE INTERNET
|
On October 12 2012 10:02 Positronic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 09:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 12 2012 09:20 Positronic wrote:On October 12 2012 09:03 NeMeSiS3 wrote: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.... I edited it out of OP since you're the second person to bring it up, perhaps I should have put in parenthesis "(I am one)". On October 12 2012 09:03 NeMeSiS3 wrote:"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. Of course the line is grey, and of course this issue may never be solved if the mission is continue to let people enjoy the same degree of freedom that they have now. It's a very difficult issue and hence I never made any statements regarding this -and-that should be outlawed or forbidden. I did raise the fact that out of respect for some of the people you love and care about (who would not appreciate knowing a stranger is taking suggestive photos for their or others' enjoyment, unless they have a voyeur fetish) who could be affected by this, we should rail against the idea of a mainstream website like Reddit with so many users and so many good qualities having places where people like this can congregate. It makes it seem socially acceptable. And it obviously attracts REAL sexual predators. There is nothing biased about that. edit: editsss Yes it attracts predators, and so does the Jon Stewart show because they enjoy his comedy. Attracting predators and being a gateway to anything are two totally different terms. All I was saying is that your reasoning is why family members of a murdered son/daughter aren't permitted to be the judge and executioner. Irrational emotions are a very tedious and subjective thing thus using "if it was your mother/sister/cousin" is a poor argument in general. I'm not really sure I get the Daily Show joke/analogy. Of course, you're right, I am making the assumption that one loves their sister/mother/cousin, and wouldn't want to see their body exploited by total stranger and that activity promoted on a major website
Like I agree with you, obviously no one would want that but that shouldn't the measure of an argument. I wouldn't want my sister becoming a talkshow host for the View because I think they're a bunch of imbeciles but that isn't a good arugment against it.
My reference to the Daily Show was that possible sex offenders may watch that to get a laugh, may bone off to skimp pictures to get a rush but just because a grouip of offenders is viewing something doesn't mean it's a gateway to anything. I don't feel compelled to make jokes because I watch comedy central nor do I want to cook meth because I like breaking bad or try heroine because I smoke pot. The "gateway" analogy is just a poor statement, just because some people are going to get a hardon to pictures of 17 year old teens wearing less clothing than a Malaysian prostitute doesn't mean they're going down some wicked patch of destruction and violence.
As I said before, obviously it's an invasion of privacy and it should be punishable (a lot of grey area, but the basic morale ground should be that invading someones privacy like that is punishable) but saying "what would your mother think!" or phrases like "What if it was your sibling/mother!" don't add anything to an argument, nor does making rash claims like "gateway" implying the mere act of seeing will induce some chemical effect that will turn the person to want more. Of course unless a study can prove that, it's simply an argument out of ignorance.
|
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
Pretty much this. It's stupid and illogical for these clowns to complain about other people doing something similar back to them. However, with the idiocy of laws these days, it wouldn't surprise me if it is them who get protected and not the actual people whose photos were taken.
The best part about it all is how they're so tough doing shit from anonymity but when threatened with the possibility of having their entire families informed about their secret lives, they cower in fear. If it's so harmless as you say, then surely your family will take it lightly.
I hope they all get screwed big time.
|
now you just have to wait for the girls to upload their own shots on their facebook, which mostly are pretty damn sexual
|
i love it how the reddit users react with aggression and fear when their rl details leak into public, but have no problems with making nsfw photos of woman taken without permission public.
reddit is a big trashcan of the internet, and the day it is closed down will be a good day.
|
On October 12 2012 10:17 Mr.Faces wrote:Show nested quote +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 Pretty much this. It's stupid and illogical for these clowns to complain about other people doing something similar back to them. However, with the idiocy of laws these days, it wouldn't surprise me if it is them who get protected and not the actual people whose photos were taken. The best part about it all is how they're so tough doing shit from anonymity but when threatened with the possibility of having their entire families informed about their secret lives, they cower in fear. If it's so harmless as you say, then surely your family will take it lightly. I hope they all get screwed big time.
I wouldn't expect any other type of human being from the "creep" subreddit.
|
On October 12 2012 10:17 Mr.Faces wrote:
If it's so harmless as you say, then surely your family will take it lightly.
Nothing in my sex life is illegal/out of the ordinary but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want all of that publicized either.
I'd wager a fair amount of people have innocent activities they'd rather not display (we just had a thread about people hiding how much they play games, for instance).
|
Oh yeah because the fat nerds on reddit are totally the ones out raping people. *sarcasm*
|
Yeah, wouldn't this be better as a bump to one of the many general threads about reddit having creepy subcommunities? Whatever :/
|
Invades privacy. Gets upset others are invading his privacy. Totally legit.
I'm hesitant to say it should be directly banned, but at the same time people's privacy should be respected and contrary to popular belief. I guess this is comparable to paparazzi shots. If this were to become illegal, those lovely gossip mags would drop right out of existence too.
Choices actually suck.
|
It's disturbing to me how many of you feel that pictures of unidentified people and information such as name, phone number, marital status, etc. are equal in terms of privacy.
NOTE- I AM NOT SAYING CREEPSHOTS ISN'T MORALLY WRONG
|
never understood why reddit doesn't have rules like
1. no stupid ass subreddits
2. no cp
3. no SRS
|
On October 12 2012 10:59 hinnolinn wrote:
It's disturbing to me how many of you feel that pictures of unidentified people and information such as name, phone number, marital status, etc. are equal in terms of privacy.
NOTE- I AM NOT SAYING CREEPSHOTS ISN'T MORALLY WRONG
most of that info is what they willingly put up in the internet. linking their shady behavior to that information is hardly worse then stalker creep photos.
point is:
1. you can be a perverted fuck, no one cares what you do at home. but leave others alone.
2. beeing careless with facebook etc is stupid and might bite you in the ass
|
If a photography enthusiast took shots of unknowing strangers and uploaded them to his/her website, I doubt that would be found creepy. The only thing that's found creepy, it seems, is the deliberate passing around of candid pictures for sexual purposes.
So, is it the sexuality that makes it creepy? If there were a subreddit for passing around candid pictures without sexual intent, would that still be creepy?
|
On October 12 2012 11:17 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 10:59 hinnolinn wrote:
It's disturbing to me how many of you feel that pictures of unidentified people and information such as name, phone number, marital status, etc. are equal in terms of privacy.
NOTE- I AM NOT SAYING CREEPSHOTS ISN'T MORALLY WRONG most of that info is what they willingly put up in the internet. linking their shady behavior to that information is hardly worse then stalker creep photos. point is: 1. you can be a perverted fuck, no one cares what you do at home. but leave others alone. 2. beeing careless with facebook etc is stupid and might bite you in the ass
Thank you for proving my point.
|
Yeah, this is really creepy and sick shit like this needs to be moderated.
|
Every time I start to read Reddit again, I get reminded why I left in the first place. The whole thing is a prime example of the Greater Internet Dickwad Theory.
Sure there are "good" parts of Reddit. But you'll never be truly isolated. That guy that responded to you in /r/starcraft? He's a mod of /r/picsofdeadkids. That guy that sent you a pm saying you made a good point in /r/politics? Frequently posts to /r/jailbait. Sure you can choose to ignore the "bad" places (as you can on the internet as a whole), but for me, as long as a page is under the Reddit banner, it's death by association.
|
On October 12 2012 07:03 emythrel wrote:Show nested quote +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. When in public you are snapped hundreds of times per day by CCTV, you are still anonymous. Agree that there is a big difference between posting a pic of some anonymous girls ass compared with posting personal information about someone. Who gave these Predittors the right to give out personal information on the internet without permission? I think you will find that is illegal where as taking a picture of someone in public.... perfectly legal in most cases. unethical and immoral? well thats a personal thing but no reason to have your personal information given out by some random person on the internet. If the government gave out this info, well thats up to them, they have actual authority..... but a private citizen has no right to do it without permission, moral authority doesn't exist in law... invasion of privacy does.
Undue public humiliation and ridicule. Unauthorized pictures of such nature are illegal to post _anywhere_. You can get sued and you will lose if the pictures are deemed as such.
Now your argument hinges on how revealing those pictures are. Your stance would then be that they would not be found humiliating by a court of law.
Sketchy.
|
This is actually legitimately disgusting ;O
|
On October 12 2012 10:48 Aerisky wrote:
Yeah, wouldn't this be better as a bump to one of the many general threads about reddit having creepy subcommunities? Whatever :/
But that wouldn't lend itself as well to Positronic's campaign.
|
Meanwhile, r/picsofdeadkids is still up.
|
I really dislike some of the subreddits that are out there, and I'm okay with a lot of them being censored or deleted. That being said, SRS is a militant subreddit that engages in disgusting behavior. Also, Chen is nothing but a yellow journalist. Dude is a firestarter, fuck him.
Tweets that he was the AMA poster that was going to die in 51 hours, and the internet believes him (based on past behavior, I'd believe him too). Then he gets mad and says "oh, well, you should have known it was sarcasm!" instead of "I'm sorry, it was distasteful and wrong". As if the internet has some sort of format for sarcastic text.
|
I don't think anyone thinks it's really acceptable to take creepy pictures of girls to share with random people on the internet.
But I also know for a fact that the entire gateway drug to rape theory is fucking retarded. You could make other arbitrary connections with that logic. Using the internet means you'll eventually like child porn! Eating fruit means you'll eventually want to eat entire trees!
|
Meh, who gives a fuck if Violentacrez gets exposed. Fuck him.
|
On October 12 2012 13:48 Skullflower wrote:Meh, who gives a fuck if Violentacrez gets exposed. Fuck him.
You really think it's acceptable to post people's information on the internet? You don't think it's irresponsible? You don't think that there are crazy people out there who might harm him? I don't understand, I mean, the subreddits he created are just wrong, but you're essentially wishing harm on someone, which is just as bad.
|
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
uh it definitely does have rules against CP
|
On October 12 2012 13:48 Skullflower wrote:Meh, who gives a fuck if Violentacrez gets exposed. Fuck him.
The whole story has more angles to it. From what I understand he created hundreds of subreddits and maintained most of them, including most of the ones which represent the more... legally borderline ones. In one of the AMAs he did when questioned WHY he would support such an immoral thing his main idea seemed to be that this stuff will find its way onto reddit one way or the other. The least he can do as a mod is to keep the clearly illegal shit out of there. That's a standpoint I can respect tbh. Someone has to this dirty job if reddit as a whole wants to keep walking on that fine line between allowing barely legal content and not censoring.
Completely ignoring that though, threatening to post private information about someone to blackmail him into following your agenda (especially since this case sounds as if higher ups on reddit are involved) isn't allright. One can argue that the "no private information"-rules both make reddit a great and horrible place but as long as it's up guys like this Adrian Chen shouldn't get away with shit like this.
|
On October 12 2012 13:26 LoLAdriankat wrote:
Meanwhile, r/picsofdeadkids is still up.
what the fuckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
|
On October 12 2012 15:46 CrazyF1r3f0x wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 13:26 LoLAdriankat wrote:
Meanwhile, r/picsofdeadkids is still up. what the fuckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
Holy FUCK, I just checked out what it was, and I think this is the first time I've ever found something disgusting. Would not recommend anybody going there.
|
On October 12 2012 13:32 Glurkenspurk wrote:
I don't think anyone thinks it's really acceptable to take creepy pictures of girls to share with random people on the internet.
But I also know for a fact that the entire gateway drug to rape theory is fucking retarded. You could make other arbitrary connections with that logic. Using the internet means you'll eventually like child porn! Eating fruit means you'll eventually want to eat entire trees!
I disagree with your disagreement. It isn't a jump of take creepy pics of a girl in public to OMG he is going to rape her now! It is more like, going to stalk the girls or try to groom younger ones. From that it seems less of a jump to rape/assault/murder. Guys who are running around taking sneaky photos of a girls up-skirt and jerking off/sharing with others to jerk off to it aren't exactly playing with a full deck of cards. If they are in an environment where the behavior is accepted and encouraged there is a chance they could go further and end up hurting some girl. It has to do with group behavior and how it can affect a person to doing things they otherwise may not do.
I'm all for free speech but common sense should prevail in this case, reddit needs to shut those guys down.
|
On October 12 2012 16:16 weishime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 13:32 Glurkenspurk wrote:
I don't think anyone thinks it's really acceptable to take creepy pictures of girls to share with random people on the internet.
But I also know for a fact that the entire gateway drug to rape theory is fucking retarded. You could make other arbitrary connections with that logic. Using the internet means you'll eventually like child porn! Eating fruit means you'll eventually want to eat entire trees! I disagree with your disagreement. It isn't a jump of take creepy pics of a girl in public to OMG he is going to rape her now! It is more like, going to stalk the girls or try to groom younger ones. From that it seems less of a jump to rape/assault/murder. Guys who are running around taking sneaky photos of a girls up-skirt and jerking off/sharing with others to jerk off to it aren't exactly playing with a full deck of cards. If they are in an environment where the behavior is accepted and encouraged there is a chance they could go further and end up hurting some girl. It has to do with group behavior and how it can affect a person to doing things they otherwise may not do. I'm all for free speech but common sense should prevail in this case, reddit needs to shut those guys down.
As far as I know, it's not about taking upskirt photos or anything like that, it's just unauthorized candid photos. It's wrong, yes, but it's completely different than taking upskirt photos.
As far as your slippery slope argument, people who are predisposed to that kind of behavior might make those sort of advancements towards more dangerous activities. I really doubt, however, that someone who isn't already capable of something like that is going to go on r/creepshots and suddenly become a rapist. People don't just go on forums and become psychotic.
|
Good thing. Some subforuma in Reddit are borderline criminal
|
Posting the real life information of the creeps is potentially more dangerous than the posting of someone's photo online. However, with that said, if you're going to do something deplorable even if legal, you shouldn't expect other people to not do the same to you under the same guise of legality. Stuff on the internet travels fast nowadays and even a photo may be recognized and tagged to the real life person very quickly. I really have no sympathy for defamers who hide under anonymity. Obviously, they would like to stay anonymous because they know what they are doing is not right.
|
There's a big difference between taking pictures of anonymous people and divulging their personal info. It's not even remotely the same thing.
|
Dude, stuff on the internet spreads quickly. An anonymous photo might not stay anonymous long the moment someone recognizes it. And you don't know who is going to recognize your photo, who is going to spread it, and for what purposes. If you're going to be a creep and potentially put someone into a situation where they can potentially lose their right to privacy, then don't be a hypocrite when someone just chose to directly do it to you and in a more direct manner.
|
On October 12 2012 06:47 PerryHooter wrote:
I guess this is what happens when young people gets to dominate an area of society, which the internet is. I'm not pointing fingers to anyone, I'm pretty young myself, just saying there's a disproportionate amount of immature and disrespectful people on the internet, and I guess that's due to the average age. These issues will probably solve themselves as time goes by and the crowd grows up, hopefully before governments strikes down on the internet through excessive law-making.
I forgot that once you turn 30 you completely stop being creepy.
|
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
It's also been linked by scientists with the global warming problems as well as the nuclear proliferation in Iran.
|
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.
|
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.
No one gets hurt? Getting hurt physically is not the only way to get hurt. Reputation? The person's own self esteem? Potential to get the person fired from a job? Plenty of ways it can damage. Posting potentially compromising photos of someone (and this is creepshots so you can't say it's not potentially compromising) means that person potentially gets hurt here. If you're going to leave someone to the mercy of the internet, then you also deserve to be left to the mercy of the internet.
|
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.
|
On October 12 2012 16:26 armada[sb] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 16:16 weishime wrote:On October 12 2012 13:32 Glurkenspurk wrote:
I don't think anyone thinks it's really acceptable to take creepy pictures of girls to share with random people on the internet.
But I also know for a fact that the entire gateway drug to rape theory is fucking retarded. You could make other arbitrary connections with that logic. Using the internet means you'll eventually like child porn! Eating fruit means you'll eventually want to eat entire trees! I disagree with your disagreement. It isn't a jump of take creepy pics of a girl in public to OMG he is going to rape her now! It is more like, going to stalk the girls or try to groom younger ones. From that it seems less of a jump to rape/assault/murder. Guys who are running around taking sneaky photos of a girls up-skirt and jerking off/sharing with others to jerk off to it aren't exactly playing with a full deck of cards. If they are in an environment where the behavior is accepted and encouraged there is a chance they could go further and end up hurting some girl. It has to do with group behavior and how it can affect a person to doing things they otherwise may not do. I'm all for free speech but common sense should prevail in this case, reddit needs to shut those guys down. As far as I know, it's not about taking upskirt photos or anything like that, it's just unauthorized candid photos. It's wrong, yes, but it's completely different than taking upskirt photos. As far as your slippery slope argument, people who are predisposed to that kind of behavior might make those sort of advancements towards more dangerous activities. I really doubt, however, that someone who isn't already capable of something like that is going to go on r/creepshots and suddenly become a rapist. People don't just go on forums and become psychotic.
As far as I know it is anything that can be gotten away with since moderation is loose. Cleavage, ass, up-skirt or whatever. Doesn't matter about age or if in school either since the don't ask don't tell policy was put in play. Though clearly if they are banning up-skirt it all suddenly becomes acceptable and obviously less seedy.
Way to overblow what I said. Who said he will suddenly become a rapist? I didn't... I only meant there is a greater chance (even if it is still a small chance) since the behavior being accepted and encouraged may cause them to go further had they not been.
Disagree if you feel like it but try googling some of the stuff which might be relevant first. Look at group vs group mentality caused by wearing a different color tshirt, how people can be made to hurt others because a 3rd party in authority says it is ok. There was also an interesting test run by a psychology professor to do with fake prison guards and inmates. That thing got so crazy it was stopped in 6 days.
That kind of stuff shows how otherwise regular people can do things that hurt others for dumb reasons. While not rape they do get dramatic results in really short amounts of time.
Nobody is saying person X will go to forum and become psychotic. Really stop trying to disprove by massive exaggeration.
Edit: Just looked two of the tests and wanted to leave links
Milgram experiment
Stanford prison experiment
|
DEY DIDN DO NUFFIN
Can you please be serious? Photos can be plenty damaging. Didnt some girl just commit suicide because she was bullied off the face of the earth for exposing her breasts on cam. Sure it was pretty stupid of her to do that but nonetheless.
When I was in middle school a longggg time ago, there was a kid who went around one day with a disposable camera going around taking upskirt pictures of girls. He would just stick it between their legs and take a photo with the flash on. Needless to say, he was suspended and the camera obliterated. Times are different now and things like photos move really fast now. I realize that this will probably never end just because some subreddit died off or could ever fully die off for that matter, but the last thing we need to do is let some public photo exchange on a mainstream website exist.
Also, I cant help but laugh at the yuros who still defend CCTV. Cmon Man
|
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.
|
On October 12 2012 17:07 weishime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 16:26 armada[sb] wrote:On October 12 2012 16:16 weishime wrote:On October 12 2012 13:32 Glurkenspurk wrote:
I don't think anyone thinks it's really acceptable to take creepy pictures of girls to share with random people on the internet.
But I also know for a fact that the entire gateway drug to rape theory is fucking retarded. You could make other arbitrary connections with that logic. Using the internet means you'll eventually like child porn! Eating fruit means you'll eventually want to eat entire trees! I disagree with your disagreement. It isn't a jump of take creepy pics of a girl in public to OMG he is going to rape her now! It is more like, going to stalk the girls or try to groom younger ones. From that it seems less of a jump to rape/assault/murder. Guys who are running around taking sneaky photos of a girls up-skirt and jerking off/sharing with others to jerk off to it aren't exactly playing with a full deck of cards. If they are in an environment where the behavior is accepted and encouraged there is a chance they could go further and end up hurting some girl. It has to do with group behavior and how it can affect a person to doing things they otherwise may not do. I'm all for free speech but common sense should prevail in this case, reddit needs to shut those guys down. As far as I know, it's not about taking upskirt photos or anything like that, it's just unauthorized candid photos. It's wrong, yes, but it's completely different than taking upskirt photos. As far as your slippery slope argument, people who are predisposed to that kind of behavior might make those sort of advancements towards more dangerous activities. I really doubt, however, that someone who isn't already capable of something like that is going to go on r/creepshots and suddenly become a rapist. People don't just go on forums and become psychotic. As far as I know it is anything that can be gotten away with since moderation is loose. Cleavage, ass, up-skirt or whatever. Doesn't matter about age or if in school either since the don't ask don't tell policy was put in play. Though clearly if they are banning up-skirt it all suddenly becomes acceptable and obviously less seedy. Way to overblow what I said. Who said he will suddenly become a rapist? I didn't... I only meant there is a greater chance (even if it is still a small chance) since the behavior being accepted and encouraged may cause them to go further had they not been. Disagree if you feel like it but try googling some of the stuff which might be relevant first. Look at group vs group mentality caused by wearing a different color tshirt, how people can be made to hurt others because a 3rd party in authority says it is ok. There was also an interesting test run by a psychology professor to do with fake prison guards and inmates. That thing got so crazy it was stopped in 6 days. That kind of stuff shows how otherwise regular people can do things that hurt others for dumb reasons. While not rape they do get dramatic results in really short amounts of time. Nobody is saying person X will go to forum and become psychotic. Really stop trying to disprove by massive exaggeration. Edit: Just looked two of the tests and wanted to leave links Milgram experimentStanford prison experiment
The studies you're quoting deal with people in a position of authority, while we are talking about people online in a position of anonymity. I don't see how they're related.
|
On October 12 2012 16:16 weishime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 13:32 Glurkenspurk wrote:
I don't think anyone thinks it's really acceptable to take creepy pictures of girls to share with random people on the internet.
But I also know for a fact that the entire gateway drug to rape theory is fucking retarded. You could make other arbitrary connections with that logic. Using the internet means you'll eventually like child porn! Eating fruit means you'll eventually want to eat entire trees! I disagree with your disagreement. It isn't a jump of take creepy pics of a girl in public to OMG he is going to rape her now! It is more like, going to stalk the girls or try to groom younger ones. From that it seems less of a jump to rape/assault/murder. Guys who are running around taking sneaky photos of a girls up-skirt and jerking off/sharing with others to jerk off to it aren't exactly playing with a full deck of cards. If they are in an environment where the behavior is accepted and encouraged there is a chance they could go further and end up hurting some girl. It has to do with group behavior and how it can affect a person to doing things they otherwise may not do. I'm all for free speech but common sense should prevail in this case, reddit needs to shut those guys down.
Excuse me, but how the F*ck do you view the male gender? Are all males crazed sociopaths who any given moment could jump out as a killer/rapists?...
|
On October 12 2012 17:14 DigitalDevil wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On October 12 2012 17:41 cloneThorN wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
On October 12 2012 17:14 DigitalDevil wrote:Show nested quote +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. There are shooting burglars on the street. I consider them way more threat to internet community than those creepy guys.
|
On October 12 2012 17:14 DigitalDevil wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.
The old "two wrongs make a right" mentality, eh?
EDIT: derped a quote.
|
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.
|
On October 12 2012 20:29 armada[sb] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 20:28 NeMeSiS3 wrote: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.
Then the argument should be to ban doxxing, not srs. People argue for freedom of the internet and then are so quick to ban things that don't work out the way they want. I have no issue with srs defaming morons or in some ways making a fool of themselves also at times but I do agree doxxing goes to far in most cases.
|
On October 12 2012 20:32 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 20:29 armada[sb] wrote:On October 12 2012 20:28 NeMeSiS3 wrote: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. Then the argument should be to ban doxxing, not srs. People argue for freedom of the internet and then are so quick to ban things that don't work out the way they want. I have no issue with srs defaming morons or in some ways making a fool of themselves also at times but I do agree doxxing goes to far in most cases.
It does go too far, and I have a problem with anyone pushing their agenda on others. Theirs is clearly a feminist agenda. Sure, there's a lot of misogyny on the internet, just like there's a lot of racism on the internet. You're not changing anything or preventing it by putting it on display. In fact, I would argue that they're just giving more attention to morons who don't deserve it. As long as people are anonymous on the internet, they're going to act like jerks.
And just for the record, I'm not at all saying that SRS should be banned. They have the right to discuss whatever it is they discuss, and as long as they don't cross the line and put people's shit out there, who cares.
|
On October 12 2012 20:37 armada[sb] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 20:32 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 12 2012 20:29 armada[sb] wrote:On October 12 2012 20:28 NeMeSiS3 wrote: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. Then the argument should be to ban doxxing, not srs. People argue for freedom of the internet and then are so quick to ban things that don't work out the way they want. I have no issue with srs defaming morons or in some ways making a fool of themselves also at times but I do agree doxxing goes to far in most cases. It does go too far, and I have a problem with anyone pushing their agenda on others. Theirs is clearly a feminist agenda. Sure, there's a lot of misogyny on the internet, just like there's a lot of racism on the internet. You're not changing anything or preventing it by putting it on display. In fact, I would argue that they're just giving more attention to morons who don't deserve it. As long as people are anonymous on the internet, they're going to act like jerks. And just for the record, I'm not at all saying that SRS should be banned. They have the right to discuss whatever it is they discuss, and as long as they don't cross the line and put people's shit out there, who cares.
Ok then you do agree that doxxing is the only issue. That's all that really needs to be said, take it up with Reddit. 
|
On October 12 2012 20:38 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 20:37 armada[sb] wrote:On October 12 2012 20:32 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 12 2012 20:29 armada[sb] wrote:On October 12 2012 20:28 NeMeSiS3 wrote: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. Then the argument should be to ban doxxing, not srs. People argue for freedom of the internet and then are so quick to ban things that don't work out the way they want. I have no issue with srs defaming morons or in some ways making a fool of themselves also at times but I do agree doxxing goes to far in most cases. It does go too far, and I have a problem with anyone pushing their agenda on others. Theirs is clearly a feminist agenda. Sure, there's a lot of misogyny on the internet, just like there's a lot of racism on the internet. You're not changing anything or preventing it by putting it on display. In fact, I would argue that they're just giving more attention to morons who don't deserve it. As long as people are anonymous on the internet, they're going to act like jerks. And just for the record, I'm not at all saying that SRS should be banned. They have the right to discuss whatever it is they discuss, and as long as they don't cross the line and put people's shit out there, who cares. Ok then you do agree that doxxing is the only issue. That's all that really needs to be said, take it up with Reddit.
I never said anything about SRS being the issue itself, although I disagree with most of the shit that I've seen on there, they have every right to use it as a forum for whatever they want.
That being said, I don't browse reddit, it's fucking silly.
SRS is just like the rest of reddit. It's a circle-jerk of like minded people who like to gather together and throw verbal stones. Good for them.
|
Unless you are not capable of thinking for yourself, law should not be your compass on what is ethical and what isn't. It is a good supporting tool in figuring out where you stand on things. One only needs to think of all the various ages of consent in the western world, or the hypocrisy of legalizing alcohol but not weed.
In this case something I would consider clearly unethical is slipping through the cracks. If someone decides the law is failing and tries to do something about it I have no issue with that personally. Legally, however...
|
On October 12 2012 20:50 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
Unless you are not capable of thinking for yourself, law should not be your compass on what is ethical and what isn't. It is a good supporting tool in figuring out where you stand on things. One only needs to think of all the various ages of consent in the western world, or the hypocrisy of allowing alcohol but not weed.
In this case something I would consider clearly unethical is slipping through the cracks. If someone decides the law is failing and tries to do something about it I have no issue with that personally. Legally, however...
I have no problem with people getting a sub-reddit shut down, I have a problem with people putting personal information out there with no intent other than vengeance.
|
For what it is worth retribution is one of the main goals of punishment. It is speculative to say the only goal here is vengeance. I would have said deterrence to be the key goal here. If your private info was posted every time you posted a photo like that I think it is clear way fewer people would actually do it. Whether we agree with how she is going about it is another matter, but I definitely wouldn't put this away as vengeance.
|
I should clarify: her intent may not be vengeance, but the people who act with the information she puts out may have that intent. Which is why she would be held liable were someone to find this guy and harm him. She may not perform the act herself, but she is enabling someone else to.
And as far as info being posted on the internet, if people were linked to their online accounts, we definitely would see people being a lot more responsible in their actions. That's not how it is in the States, however, and to act like some great justice is being done because you deter one wacko on the internet is just silly.
|
Masturbation only effects oneself and is therefore ethically neutral; a masturbatory motive does not change the ethics of an action. Furthermore, I think we'll generally agree that taking unauthorized photographs and uploading them to publicly-accessible websites is not in and of itself immoral.
So, there must be a special quality of these 'creepshots', or a significant subset of them, that makes them unethical. One simple example is, "the picture was taken at an angle from which people are not supposed to be seen." Skirts are more covering than underwear because one can reasonably expect people not to look under you; deliberately peering under them is a violation of privacy. Holding a camera high to peer down cleavage is somewhat similar. There's also the possibility of the camera (plus flash) seeing through clothing that the eye normally could not.
There may also be something to be said for brief, non-representative moments of life. Something publicly visible only for a half-second isn't really public (unlike, say, visuals of your swimsuit'd body if you spend a day at the beach), but it can be captured and examined in detail if snapped by a camera.
|
One of the terrible things about child porn is that not only does the child go through the filming, but then the video is out there for pedophiles to watch, so in a sense you're branded for life. If there was a photo of me out there that was used as 'material' for some people I would want them to stop and I would feel a little bit violated if I didn't give consent, I think most people are the same.
|
On October 12 2012 21:26 Grumbels wrote:
If there was a photo of me out there that was used as 'material' for some people I would want them to stop and I would feel a little bit violated if I didn't give consent, I think most people are the same.
Would you feel equally violated if the picture/video were amusing rather than erotic, and people distributed it to laugh rather than to wank?
|
I wonder what the legality of posting someone's name, address and telephone number is with no explicit call to harass the person. I believe the person behind the tumblr said the intent was to make people around the posters aware of their actions.
More power to them either way. I was going to say I understand there's a difference between creepy sexual predators and stupid people going "huhhuhuh hot girl let me take a picture," but then I thought about the fact that it's pretty much weird no matter what the situation is. I've never thought "omg i want to take a picture of this super hot fucking girl when she isnt looking and post it on the internet." You reap what you sow.
|
Even if they ban the subreddit, the community will still be there. People that enjoy this and that derive pleasure from these kinds of pictures will find a way to trade it regardless. This seems like a somewhat punitive effort to stop a more serious issue.
|
If it's done while the girl is in public I don't see an issue here, I share the view of Severdevil.
Stuff like Article 8 of the ECHR and other privacy laws don't apply.
However, I do think the case of the teacher taking photos of his student should be illegal, He breached his fiduciary obligations as an educator.
EDIT: To clarify further, I think upskirts are not okay, just normal photos of the girl going about her day.
|
On October 12 2012 21:34 ambikalx wrote:
I wonder what the legality of posting someone's name, address and telephone number is with no explicit call to harass the person. I believe the person behind the tumblr said the intent was to make people around the posters aware of their actions.
More power to them either way. I was going to say I understand there's a difference between creepy sexual predators and stupid people going "huhhuhuh hot girl let me take a picture," but then I thought about the fact that it's pretty much weird no matter what the situation is. I've never thought "omg i want to take a picture of this super hot fucking girl when she isnt looking and post it on the internet." You reap what you sow.
It's illegal, it falls under invasion of privacy, and if something were to happen to them the person who posted on the tumblr could be held liable. And if the person whose information was posted is under 18, they'll get in a shitload more trouble. I'm pretty sure there's serious jailtime involved either way.
|
If you can find their personal info, post it. They want to harass people, let em reap what they sow.
|
On October 12 2012 21:59 See.Blue wrote:
If you can find their personal info, post it. They want to harass people, let em reap what they sow.
Yeah, lets let mob mentality take over! Good call!
|
On October 12 2012 21:59 See.Blue wrote:
If you can find their personal info, post it. They want to harass people, let em reap what they sow.
but now you are advocating harassment so by your logic we should look up info on you and post it.
|
On October 12 2012 21:29 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 21:26 Grumbels wrote:
If there was a photo of me out there that was used as 'material' for some people I would want them to stop and I would feel a little bit violated if I didn't give consent, I think most people are the same. Would you feel equally violated if the picture/video were amusing rather than erotic, and people distributed it to laugh rather than to wank?
The context in which the personal information is presented may change how one feels about it. People are generally surprisingly consenting when their photos are used in a somewhat neutral sense. Implicit consent is thus assumed in most cases. The more inappropriate the scenario, the more likely implicit consent is not given. This continuum concept can be applied to "amusing" photos as well. Perhaps it's more unlikely that the person will give implicit consent, especially if it mocks them, but certainly the degree of severity varies. Creepshots is one of those areas where the context is deemed inappropriate by most and implicit consent should not be assumed. It doesn't take much effort to see why it's unethical.
|
On October 12 2012 22:36 DigitalDevil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 21:29 Severedevil wrote:On October 12 2012 21:26 Grumbels wrote:
If there was a photo of me out there that was used as 'material' for some people I would want them to stop and I would feel a little bit violated if I didn't give consent, I think most people are the same. Would you feel equally violated if the picture/video were amusing rather than erotic, and people distributed it to laugh rather than to wank? The context in which the personal information is presented may change how one feels about it. People are generally surprisingly consenting when their photos are used in a somewhat neutral sense. Implicit consent is thus assumed in most cases. The more inappropriate the scenario, the more likely implicit consent is not given. This continuum concept can be applied to "amusing" photos as well. Perhaps it's more unlikely that the person will give implicit consent, especially if it mocks them, but certainly the degree of severity varies. Creepshots is one of those areas where the context is deemed inappropriate by most and implicit consent should not be assumed. It doesn't take much effort to see why it's unethical.
Disclaimer: my argument only applies to pictures of a girl waiting for the bus / going about her day, not upskirts or sexually explicit ones.
It would be impossible to enforce such stuff as it would be dependent on the thought process of the viewer. If it's a completely clean photo how can you differentiate the people who simply go "Aww, she's quite cute" to the people using it to fap?
Given how weird some people's sexual preferences are, it's not implausible to suggest that some people may obtain sexual gratification from otherwise "normal" photos.
|
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.
I cant believe that there are people in the world who think that taking pictures of women and posting them on public forums is not creepy.
|
On October 12 2012 22:42 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 22:36 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 12 2012 21:29 Severedevil wrote:On October 12 2012 21:26 Grumbels wrote:
If there was a photo of me out there that was used as 'material' for some people I would want them to stop and I would feel a little bit violated if I didn't give consent, I think most people are the same. Would you feel equally violated if the picture/video were amusing rather than erotic, and people distributed it to laugh rather than to wank? The context in which the personal information is presented may change how one feels about it. People are generally surprisingly consenting when their photos are used in a somewhat neutral sense. Implicit consent is thus assumed in most cases. The more inappropriate the scenario, the more likely implicit consent is not given. This continuum concept can be applied to "amusing" photos as well. Perhaps it's more unlikely that the person will give implicit consent, especially if it mocks them, but certainly the degree of severity varies. Creepshots is one of those areas where the context is deemed inappropriate by most and implicit consent should not be assumed. It doesn't take much effort to see why it's unethical. Disclaimer: my argument only applies to pictures of a girl waiting for the bus / going about her day, not upskirts or sexually explicit ones. It would be impossible to enforce such stuff as it would be dependent on the thought process of the viewer. If it's a completely clean photo how can you differentiate the people who simply go "Aww, she's quite cute" to the people using it to fap? Given how weird some people's sexual preferences are, it's not implausible to suggest that some people may obtain sexual gratification from otherwise "normal" photos.
Contextual information doesn't only rely on the photos themselves. For example, you can easily add an inappropriate caption. Let's say you don't even alter the photo but you post it on some notorious place on the web like creepshots. Clearly, the place where the photo is posted suggests something inappropriate. Surely it's within reason to say creepshots is inappropriate?
|
On October 12 2012 22:47 DigitalDevil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 22:42 S_SienZ wrote:On October 12 2012 22:36 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 12 2012 21:29 Severedevil wrote:On October 12 2012 21:26 Grumbels wrote:
If there was a photo of me out there that was used as 'material' for some people I would want them to stop and I would feel a little bit violated if I didn't give consent, I think most people are the same. Would you feel equally violated if the picture/video were amusing rather than erotic, and people distributed it to laugh rather than to wank? The context in which the personal information is presented may change how one feels about it. People are generally surprisingly consenting when their photos are used in a somewhat neutral sense. Implicit consent is thus assumed in most cases. The more inappropriate the scenario, the more likely implicit consent is not given. This continuum concept can be applied to "amusing" photos as well. Perhaps it's more unlikely that the person will give implicit consent, especially if it mocks them, but certainly the degree of severity varies. Creepshots is one of those areas where the context is deemed inappropriate by most and implicit consent should not be assumed. It doesn't take much effort to see why it's unethical. Disclaimer: my argument only applies to pictures of a girl waiting for the bus / going about her day, not upskirts or sexually explicit ones. It would be impossible to enforce such stuff as it would be dependent on the thought process of the viewer. If it's a completely clean photo how can you differentiate the people who simply go "Aww, she's quite cute" to the people using it to fap? Given how weird some people's sexual preferences are, it's not implausible to suggest that some people may obtain sexual gratification from otherwise "normal" photos. Contextual information doesn't only rely on the photos themselves. For example, you can easily add an inappropriate caption. Let's say you don't even alter the photo but you post it on some notorious place on the web like creepshots. Clearly, the place where the photo is posted suggests something inappropriate. Surely it's within reason to say creepshots is inappropriate?
Yes, with that in mind you could say that creepshots is inappropriate.
But it will come back, and what are you to do when people figure this out? And just have a plain wall of photos, without calling themselves Creepshots (probably on par with PirateBay calling themselves The Pirate Bay in terms of stupidity) and without captions. Effectively such rules only make people package the problem better, it doesn't make it go away.
|
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.
I think going out of your way to post pictures of other people without their knowledge or consent is creepy as hell. I'd be furious if stalker-type pictures of my girlfriend or family members were posted, and photos of you circulating the internet with a lack of context attached to them can have the potential to screw you over if you work in a professional setting. Having no control over that level of privacy is pretty unsettling, in my opinion.
|
On October 12 2012 23:01 DarkPlasmaBall 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. I think going out of your way to post pictures of other people without their knowledge or consent is creepy as hell. I'd be furious if stalker-type pictures of my girlfriend or family members were posted, and photos of you circulating the internet with a lack of context attached to them can have the potential to screw you over if you work in a professional setting. Having no control over that level of privacy is pretty unsettling, in my opinion.
I agree, I would feel disgusted and disturbed if someone I know was included on that site XD I feel for all the people that were up there. Pretty scary.
|
On October 12 2012 22:54 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 22:47 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 12 2012 22:42 S_SienZ wrote:On October 12 2012 22:36 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 12 2012 21:29 Severedevil wrote:On October 12 2012 21:26 Grumbels wrote:
If there was a photo of me out there that was used as 'material' for some people I would want them to stop and I would feel a little bit violated if I didn't give consent, I think most people are the same. Would you feel equally violated if the picture/video were amusing rather than erotic, and people distributed it to laugh rather than to wank? The context in which the personal information is presented may change how one feels about it. People are generally surprisingly consenting when their photos are used in a somewhat neutral sense. Implicit consent is thus assumed in most cases. The more inappropriate the scenario, the more likely implicit consent is not given. This continuum concept can be applied to "amusing" photos as well. Perhaps it's more unlikely that the person will give implicit consent, especially if it mocks them, but certainly the degree of severity varies. Creepshots is one of those areas where the context is deemed inappropriate by most and implicit consent should not be assumed. It doesn't take much effort to see why it's unethical. Disclaimer: my argument only applies to pictures of a girl waiting for the bus / going about her day, not upskirts or sexually explicit ones. It would be impossible to enforce such stuff as it would be dependent on the thought process of the viewer. If it's a completely clean photo how can you differentiate the people who simply go "Aww, she's quite cute" to the people using it to fap? Given how weird some people's sexual preferences are, it's not implausible to suggest that some people may obtain sexual gratification from otherwise "normal" photos. Contextual information doesn't only rely on the photos themselves. For example, you can easily add an inappropriate caption. Let's say you don't even alter the photo but you post it on some notorious place on the web like creepshots. Clearly, the place where the photo is posted suggests something inappropriate. Surely it's within reason to say creepshots is inappropriate? Yes, with that in mind you could say that creepshots is inappropriate. But it will come back, and what are you to do when people figure this out? And just have a plain wall of photos, without calling themselves Creepshots (probably on par with PirateBay calling themselves The Pirate Bay in terms of stupidity) and without captions. Effectively such rules only make people package the problem better, it doesn't make it go away.
Regardless of how they end up getting around it, it's still an unethical practice. Notice I am not suggesting a solution but merely providing commentary.
|
On October 12 2012 22:46 PassiveAce 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. I cant believe that there are people in the world who think that taking pictures of women and posting them on public forums is not creepy.
You've never read a women's magazine where paparazzi do it all the time. :D You must not see Cosmo's  lol
|
On October 12 2012 23:12 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 22:46 PassiveAce wrote: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. I cant believe that there are people in the world who think that taking pictures of women and posting them on public forums is not creepy. You've never read a women's magazine where paparazzi do it all the time. :D You must not see Cosmo's lol
Paparazzi are not illusioned that what they do is not creepy. models in magazines get paid also.
|
On October 12 2012 22:46 PassiveAce 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. I cant believe that there are people in the world who think that taking pictures of women and posting them on public forums is not creepy.
He didn't say it wasn't creepy. He said it wasn't wrong.
|
On October 13 2012 00:03 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 22:46 PassiveAce wrote: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. I cant believe that there are people in the world who think that taking pictures of women and posting them on public forums is not creepy. He didn't say it wasn't creepy. He said it wasn't wrong.
he implied that one was creepy while the other was not.
If he didnt mean that then I apologize.
|
On October 13 2012 00:06 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 00:03 Dfgj wrote:On October 12 2012 22:46 PassiveAce wrote: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. I cant believe that there are people in the world who think that taking pictures of women and posting them on public forums is not creepy. He didn't say it wasn't creepy. He said it wasn't wrong. he implied that one was creepy while the other was not. If he didnt mean that then I apologize.
Eh, I agree with you, but I think his point was mainly that posting anonymous pictures isn't 'wrong' in the way making someone's information public is.
|
I dont think that making someones body public is somehow less "wrong" then making someones address, name or phonenumber public.
|
On October 13 2012 00:09 PassiveAce wrote:
I dont think that making someones body public is somehow less "wrong" then making someones address, name or phonenumber public.
I'd agree with you if making said body public included making them easily identifiable to the internet. That is (I'd hope) rarely the case.
It's creepy, but showing off a random person's appearance in public still invites less harm than making the details of their life public to others.
|
On October 13 2012 00:11 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 00:09 PassiveAce wrote:
I dont think that making someones body public is somehow less "wrong" then making someones address, name or phonenumber public. I'd agree with you if making said body public included making them easily identifiable to the internet. That is (I'd hope) rarely the case. It's creepy, but showing off a random person's appearance in public still invites less harm than making the details of their life public to others.
I guess I have to concede your second point. It is much easier to cause deliberate harm to someone with that kind of personal information then with a picture.
I still feel like that if your going to post embarrassing pictures of women on a public forum inhabited by teenagers with their dicks in their hands, then you should be prepared to be exposed yourself.
|
On October 13 2012 00:09 PassiveAce wrote:
I dont think that making someones body public is somehow less "wrong" then making someones address, name or phonenumber public.
It is, assuming it's merely your appearance and not literally your body underneath your clothes.
By going out in public you impliedly consent to a variety of things, such as inevitable contact with others ( esp in congested subways etc ), reasonable amount of noise etc. One of those things would be letting people see you. Sure, taking pictures is different, but my point is, people will know what you look like.
Contact information however, is never available unless positively made available by the owner's choice. There is no way to obtain it around the owner which is legal.
|
On October 13 2012 00:27 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 00:11 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:09 PassiveAce wrote:
I dont think that making someones body public is somehow less "wrong" then making someones address, name or phonenumber public. I'd agree with you if making said body public included making them easily identifiable to the internet. That is (I'd hope) rarely the case. It's creepy, but showing off a random person's appearance in public still invites less harm than making the details of their life public to others. I guess I have to concede your second point. It is much easier to cause deliberate harm to someone with that kind of personal information then with a picture. I still feel like that if your going to post embarrassing pictures of women on a public forum inhabited by teenagers with their dicks in their hands, then you should be prepared to be exposed yourself.
I'd accept that if the conditions were the same - ie: exposed in the same anonymous manner. It's a lot harder to harass a random photograph.
|
On October 13 2012 00:00 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 23:12 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 12 2012 22:46 PassiveAce wrote: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. I cant believe that there are people in the world who think that taking pictures of women and posting them on public forums is not creepy. You've never read a women's magazine where paparazzi do it all the time. :D You must not see Cosmo's lol Paparazzi are not illusioned that what they do is not creepy. models in magazines get paid also.
A lot of magazine photos, such as the one of the Prince who was naked, was taken not as a model but with paparazzi.
If you are saying "it's creepy" that doesn't mean it's illegal. So either we change the laws and being a paparazzi becomes illegal along with common people taking these photos or both are labled "creepy" and allowed to exist. Double standards are ridiculous.
|
On October 12 2012 06:33 Chill wrote:
The internet is getting really scary and creepy.
Humans are scary and creepy.
|
On October 13 2012 00:39 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 00:00 PassiveAce wrote:On October 12 2012 23:12 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 12 2012 22:46 PassiveAce wrote: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. I cant believe that there are people in the world who think that taking pictures of women and posting them on public forums is not creepy. You've never read a women's magazine where paparazzi do it all the time. :D You must not see Cosmo's lol Paparazzi are not illusioned that what they do is not creepy. models in magazines get paid also. A lot of magazine photos, such as the one of the Prince who was naked, was taken not as a model but with paparazzi. If you are saying "it's creepy" that doesn't mean it's illegal. So either we change the laws and being a paparazzi becomes illegal along with common people taking these photos or both are labled "creepy" and allowed to exist. Double standards are ridiculous.
I never said it was illegal. please dont put words in my virtual mouth kthx.
|
On October 13 2012 00:39 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 00:00 PassiveAce wrote:On October 12 2012 23:12 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 12 2012 22:46 PassiveAce wrote: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. I cant believe that there are people in the world who think that taking pictures of women and posting them on public forums is not creepy. You've never read a women's magazine where paparazzi do it all the time. :D You must not see Cosmo's lol Paparazzi are not illusioned that what they do is not creepy. models in magazines get paid also. A lot of magazine photos, such as the one of the Prince who was naked, was taken not as a model but with paparazzi. If you are saying "it's creepy" that doesn't mean it's illegal. So either we change the laws and being a paparazzi becomes illegal along with common people taking these photos or both are labled "creepy" and allowed to exist. Double standards are ridiculous.
Paparazzi take pictures of public figures who willing opening themselves up to the public during their careers. Also, paparazzi members have been charged for breaking the law or illegally photographing someone who is not a "public figure'(a subjective term, but one used in law). That issue has been flesh out by the Supreme Court. In some states, it is illegal to photograph or record someone without their consent.
If you are in Massachusetts, M.G.L. Chapter 272, Section 105 makes it a crime to videotape or photograph a nude or partially nude person without their permission or knowledge. Partially nude is subjective, but it could be argued that positioning the camera in a way that reveals parts of the body clothing is meant to conceal(upskirt) would be covered under this law. There are other laws privacy laws that also cover this.
But for people who are saying that photographing someone without their consent is not illegal, I have one fact for you. There is no law specifically prohibiting anyone from mounting a flame thrower on their car. There is also not law specifically prohibiting you from juggling knives in a public park. Have no doubt that the police would stop you from doing both. Photographing someone without consent is not a dangerous act to the person being photographed, but the natural extension of that behavior is.
|
People encouraging harassment or worse by posting detailed personal informations on people are infinitely more evil than people getting off looking at upskirts.
|
On October 13 2012 03:14 Microchaton wrote:
People encouraging harassment or worse by posting detailed personal informations on people are infinitely more evil than people getting off looking at upskirts.
You should at least read through the last few pages before commenting. Your statement provides no context and also the situation here is more complex than how you're laying it out.
|
They should just use Reddit as a means of catching pedos and stuff. :B
|
On October 13 2012 03:28 DigitalDevil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 03:14 Microchaton wrote:
People encouraging harassment or worse by posting detailed personal informations on people are infinitely more evil than people getting off looking at upskirts. You should at least read through the last few pages before commenting. Your statement provides no context and also the situation here is more complex than how you're laying it out.
I literally read every post. I don't think the situation is that complex, the discussion about what is right/wrong/ethical/unethical/legal/illegal and if it should matter if it's not illegal is. The situation is that the "whistleblowers", if you will, the doxxers, are much more damaging and dangerous than the "creepers". I'm sure the majority of the people being outraged by the "creepiness" masturbated to some leaked/paparazzi pictures. The vast majority of the pictures showing anything in the various "creepshots" I've seen make it either pretty much impossible to identify the person, or don't really show either breasts or genitalia. And I fail to see how "upskirts" can show a face at the same time too, unless it's voluntary.
I'm also relatively sure that a pretty large amount of "creepshots" are done with full awareness of the person being "creeped". It's as fake as "college parties" "just turned 18" "ex-gf revenge" and other porn scenarios.
I fail to see how you can get "in trouble" in your job if you were unlucky enough to be the 0,05% of women identified as "creepshot" by people at your job (how the fuck did they find the pic in the first place?). You wear underwear ? Fantastic! At the very worst it can lead to some high schoolers being mean, cool fucking story. I'm also entirely without compassion for girls willingly having their pics put online and then complaining about it, unless they were like 11 and being manipulated by some older guy. If you're 14+ and you do that shit and it comes back to haunt you, well tough shit maybe you should have thought about it.
I'm not exactly a libertarian and I really don't see the appeal of creepshots and the like, but I disagree with the subreddit being put down, and I absolutely abhor the method, by the gawker "journalist" and the SRS people, and the people agreeing with what they did.
|
For any of you comparing taking a pic of a public figures (ie, a celebrity) to a reg joe just make me want to facepalm. Public figure pictures generally fall under fair use laws but there is still limitations.
On October 13 2012 00:07 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 00:06 PassiveAce wrote:On October 13 2012 00:03 Dfgj wrote:On October 12 2012 22:46 PassiveAce wrote: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. I cant believe that there are people in the world who think that taking pictures of women and posting them on public forums is not creepy. He didn't say it wasn't creepy. He said it wasn't wrong. he implied that one was creepy while the other was not. If he didnt mean that then I apologize. Eh, I agree with you, but I think his point was mainly that posting anonymous pictures isn't 'wrong' in the way making someone's information public is.
Posting pics of someone that you did not give you consent is wrong, its illegal. You need to have written consent from each person that is distinguishable in the photograph to reproduce and distribute the image. And if it was a minor you would probably need parental consent as well.
And while the people posting the creep-shooters info may be ethically wrong, they are not doing anything illegal like what the people posting the pics are since from what i read all they are doing is getting information that is available on the public domain.
I know two "wrongs" dont make a right but is hard to care when they are doing stuff like posting pics without permission.
|
On October 13 2012 04:38 Quintum_ wrote:
Posting pics of someone that you did not give you consent is wrong, its illegal. You need to have written consent from each person that is distinguishable in the photograph to reproduce and distribute the image. And if it was a minor you would probably need parental consent as well.
what
So you're saying I can sue anyone who tags me in a facebook picture, and the entire MLG crowd can sue because no written permission was gotten from every person? You got a source on that law?
|
|
|
On October 13 2012 05:29 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 04:38 Quintum_ wrote:
Posting pics of someone that you did not give you consent is wrong, its illegal. You need to have written consent from each person that is distinguishable in the photograph to reproduce and distribute the image. And if it was a minor you would probably need parental consent as well. what So you're saying I can sue anyone who tags me in a facebook picture, and the entire MLG crowd can sue because no written permission was gotten from every person? You got a source on that law?
It's a bit more complicated than that but in a nutshell, yes, that's the legal situation in e.g. Germany.
The more complex part is that it's illegal if someone takes a picture of you with the addit premise that:
a) Close friends/family would be able to identify you.
b) Removing you would take away an essential part of the picture.
I'm not up to date as to how exactly Facebook stories play out but as an example, yes, you have all the right in the world to tell a person who just took a picture of you to delete it right there, right now. If you didn't see the person but find it online (on a German page) getting it taken off is as simple as messaging the responsible admins. And yes, if you want to you can sue for that as well if they don't take action immediately.
PS: Case b) is mostly aimed at groups as the mentioned MLG crowd. Taking away a single person from that picture wouldn't compromise the picture in any shape or form so they have no personal right on said picture. HOWEVER, assuming that there is one person with a hilarious outfit in a group of 50 and you can argue that without the person the picture wouldn't be the same that person might keep their right on said picture.
The laws around here are not very explicit on this topic on purpose, mostly to help both sides of the issue.
|
Ha good a bunch of fucked up creeps are getting humiliated. that's a good thing, and if you disagree with me, i will laugh at you too, creeps
|
On October 13 2012 04:24 Microchaton wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 03:28 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 13 2012 03:14 Microchaton wrote:
People encouraging harassment or worse by posting detailed personal informations on people are infinitely more evil than people getting off looking at upskirts. You should at least read through the last few pages before commenting. Your statement provides no context and also the situation here is more complex than how you're laying it out. I literally read every post. I don't think the situation is that complex, the discussion about what is right/wrong/ethical/unethical/legal/illegal and if it should matter if it's not illegal is. The situation is that the "whistleblowers", if you will, the doxxers, are much more damaging and dangerous than the "creepers". I'm sure the majority of the people being outraged by the "creepiness" masturbated to some leaked/paparazzi pictures. The vast majority of the pictures showing anything in the various "creepshots" I've seen make it either pretty much impossible to identify the person, or don't really show either breasts or genitalia. And I fail to see how "upskirts" can show a face at the same time too, unless it's voluntary. I'm also relatively sure that a pretty large amount of "creepshots" are done with full awareness of the person being "creeped". It's as fake as "college parties" "just turned 18" "ex-gf revenge" and other porn scenarios.
The doxxers are clearly in the wrong. However, you seem to be trying to justify the actions of the creepers by making a lot of assumptions about people in general. Basing your entire argument on baseless assumptions such as the possibility that most people who are posted on there are intentionally faked or that the people who are outraged actually secretly do the same is a weak position at best. I've already digressed in the previous pages (along with a few others) on how it can damage the person whose photo is involuntarily posted on there. If you'd like to further continue down this debate, then please provide counterarguments for those first as no one has so far.
I fail to see how you can get "in trouble" in your job if you were unlucky enough to be the 0,05% of women identified as "creepshot" by people at your job (how the fuck did they find the pic in the first place?). You wear underwear ? Fantastic! At the very worst it can lead to some high schoolers being mean, cool fucking story. I'm also entirely without compassion for girls willingly having their pics put online and then complaining about it, unless they were like 11 and being manipulated by some older guy. If you're 14+ and you do that shit and it comes back to haunt you, well tough shit maybe you should have thought about it.
I'm not exactly a libertarian and I really don't see the appeal of creepshots and the like, but I disagree with the subreddit being put down, and I absolutely abhor the method, by the gawker "journalist" and the SRS people, and the people agreeing with what they did.
There are plenty of ways for information to spread on the internet. Obviously, one way is for someone who for whatever reason dislikes you, who happened to come across that photo, recognizes you, and decides to spread it. That's not even an unreasonable situation. Who said it had to be an upstanding citizen that comes across it? You're making plenty of assumptions about people in general and your position is very insensitive to be honest. Gray areas exist and circumstances aren't as black and white as you seem to put it. A lot of people abstract the entire argument like it's no big deal and distance themselves from the situation. But the moment it happens to them or their loved ones, it suddenly becomes unsettling.
|
On October 12 2012 22:02 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 21:59 See.Blue wrote:
If you can find their personal info, post it. They want to harass people, let em reap what they sow. but now you are advocating harassment so by your logic we should look up info on you and post it.
The irony. You can almost taste it.
|
While taking pictures of random women and posting them online is undoubtedly creepy and morally questionable, I have to ask, what's the harm, really? As long as cameras exist, dudes are gonna take pictures of girls without their knowledge and wank off to them. The only difference is that, with the internet, those pictures can be shared. Either way, no one is actually being hurt.
Men making a stink over this are white-knighting, and women making a stink over this are playing the victim. Who cares if somewhere, some dude you'll never meet is masturbating to your image? There's bigger fish to fry.
|
"There is a line in what a sexual predator is, and taking a photo of a hot girl in public is NOT that," he said. "Creepy, yes."
There is a difference between taking a picture of a hot girl and talking about her and not knowing anything about her. Knowing her marital status, name, etc. is more than just creepy. You're a sexual predator.
|
On October 13 2012 06:02 Scufo wrote:
While taking pictures of random women and posting them online is undoubtedly creepy and morally questionable, I have to ask, what's the harm, really? As long as cameras exist, dudes are gonna take pictures of girls without their knowledge and wank off to them. The only difference is that, with the internet, those pictures can be shared. Either way, no one is actually being hurt.
Men making a stink over this are white-knighting, and women making a stink over this are playing the victim. Who cares if somewhere, some dude you'll never meet is masturbating to your image? There's bigger fish to fry.
First of all, some do care. It's a subjective matter and it matters more to some than others. Also, there is such a thing as degree. For example, consider the extreme that your images are posted onto an actual porn site. Most would be very offended by that. In this case, perhaps it's not as extreme an example as explicit porn, but you can't assume everyone will share your opinion.
As for the damage it can cause, please read the discussion on the previous pages.
|
On October 13 2012 06:13 DigitalDevil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 06:02 Scufo wrote:
While taking pictures of random women and posting them online is undoubtedly creepy and morally questionable, I have to ask, what's the harm, really? As long as cameras exist, dudes are gonna take pictures of girls without their knowledge and wank off to them. The only difference is that, with the internet, those pictures can be shared. Either way, no one is actually being hurt.
Men making a stink over this are white-knighting, and women making a stink over this are playing the victim. Who cares if somewhere, some dude you'll never meet is masturbating to your image? There's bigger fish to fry. First of all, some do care. It's a subjective matter and it matters more to some than others. Also, there is such a thing as degree. For example, consider the extreme that your images are posted onto an actual porn site. Most would be very offended by that. In this case, perhaps it's not as extreme an example as explicit porn, but you can't assume everyone will share your opinion. As for the damage it can cause, please read the discussion on the previous pages.
"People will get offended"
This, my friend, is a useless phrase, and is not a proper argument against anything. Every single day, people everywhere get offended at the most trivial shit imaginable. And it DOESN'T. MATTER. If your goal in life is to never ever offend anyone, you have a truly Herculean task ahead of you. I say again: no one is getting hurt. These dudes are not seeking out the women in the pics and raping them. Nor could they, even if they wanted to.
As for these pics getting posted to porn sites...that is irrelevant because creepshots are not porn. Porn sites are not interested in fully clothed women going about their business in public.
|
On October 13 2012 06:26 Scufo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 06:13 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 13 2012 06:02 Scufo wrote:
While taking pictures of random women and posting them online is undoubtedly creepy and morally questionable, I have to ask, what's the harm, really? As long as cameras exist, dudes are gonna take pictures of girls without their knowledge and wank off to them. The only difference is that, with the internet, those pictures can be shared. Either way, no one is actually being hurt.
Men making a stink over this are white-knighting, and women making a stink over this are playing the victim. Who cares if somewhere, some dude you'll never meet is masturbating to your image? There's bigger fish to fry. First of all, some do care. It's a subjective matter and it matters more to some than others. Also, there is such a thing as degree. For example, consider the extreme that your images are posted onto an actual porn site. Most would be very offended by that. In this case, perhaps it's not as extreme an example as explicit porn, but you can't assume everyone will share your opinion. As for the damage it can cause, please read the discussion on the previous pages. "People will get offended" This, my friend, is a useless phrase, and is not a proper argument against anything. Every single day, people everywhere get offended at the most trivial shit imaginable. And it DOESN'T. MATTER. If your goal in life is to never ever offend anyone, you have a truly Herculean task ahead of you. I say again: no one is getting hurt. These dudes are not seeking out the women in the pics and raping them. Nor could they, even if they wanted to. As for these pics getting posted to porn sites...that is irrelevant because creepshots are not porn. Porn sites are not interested in fully clothed women going about their business in public.
You're acting like this is remotely comparable to being offended to trivial things. Obviously, the conditions for what is trivial or not can vary. However, there are things that we can reasonably, by logic of relation, deem wrong. Would you like to argue that murder is not bad?
Also, you're getting stuck in the details of the example. Look at the concept of the argument.
|
You're comparing internet pictures to murder. I am done arguing.
|
On October 13 2012 06:34 Scufo wrote:
You're comparing internet pictures to murder. I am done arguing.
No, reread the post. I am not comparing murder to the situation at hand. I am merely using the concept of murder to demonstrate there exists an act widely considered to be unethical. This is brought up to counter your argument that people will be offended by everything and seemingly implying there should be no limits. I gave you a limit here.
|
On October 13 2012 05:52 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 05:29 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 04:38 Quintum_ wrote:
Posting pics of someone that you did not give you consent is wrong, its illegal. You need to have written consent from each person that is distinguishable in the photograph to reproduce and distribute the image. And if it was a minor you would probably need parental consent as well. what So you're saying I can sue anyone who tags me in a facebook picture, and the entire MLG crowd can sue because no written permission was gotten from every person? You got a source on that law? It's a bit more complicated than that but in a nutshell, yes, that's the legal situation in e.g. Germany. The more complex part is that it's illegal if someone takes a picture of you with the addit premise that: a) Close friends/family would be able to identify you. b) Removing you would take away an essential part of the picture. I'm not up to date as to how exactly Facebook stories play out but as an example, yes, you have all the right in the world to tell a person who just took a picture of you to delete it right there, right now. If you didn't see the person but find it online (on a German page) getting it taken off is as simple as messaging the responsible admins. And yes, if you want to you can sue for that as well if they don't take action immediately. PS: Case b) is mostly aimed at groups as the mentioned MLG crowd. Taking away a single person from that picture wouldn't compromise the picture in any shape or form so they have no personal right on said picture. HOWEVER, assuming that there is one person with a hilarious outfit in a group of 50 and you can argue that without the person the picture wouldn't be the same that person might keep their right on said picture. The laws around here are not very explicit on this topic on purpose, mostly to help both sides of the issue.
Hm, fair enough. I imagine it would be necessary to remove pictures off reddit if the person knew and contacted them too, but that seems like an unlikely situation (finding out about it in the first place, etc).
|
On October 13 2012 06:41 DigitalDevil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 06:34 Scufo wrote:
You're comparing internet pictures to murder. I am done arguing. No, reread the post. I am not comparing murder to the situation at hand. I am merely using the concept of murder to demonstrate there exists an act widely considered to be unethical. This is brought up to counter your argument that people will be offended by everything and seemingly implying there should be no limits. I gave you a limit here.
That wasn't part of his argument. Being offended by something isn't a reason for it to be wrong. The proof is in the fact that something offends everyone, which would make everything wrong. For instance, murder offends people, but that's not part of the ethical structure that tells us murder is wrong.
Your bringing up murder as a "limit" isn't helpful either. What are you trying to reduce the discussion to? There exists something that is bad that's known as murder. If we could prove something were worse than murder, we'd know it was also beyond the limit. For instance, mass murder. But candid photography is nowhere near that line (which is not to say it is or isn't bad). So let's get back to Scufo's actual question: what's the actual harm here?
|
On October 13 2012 00:31 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 00:27 PassiveAce wrote:On October 13 2012 00:11 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:09 PassiveAce wrote:
I dont think that making someones body public is somehow less "wrong" then making someones address, name or phonenumber public. I'd agree with you if making said body public included making them easily identifiable to the internet. That is (I'd hope) rarely the case. It's creepy, but showing off a random person's appearance in public still invites less harm than making the details of their life public to others. I guess I have to concede your second point. It is much easier to cause deliberate harm to someone with that kind of personal information then with a picture. I still feel like that if your going to post embarrassing pictures of women on a public forum inhabited by teenagers with their dicks in their hands, then you should be prepared to be exposed yourself. I'd accept that if the conditions were the same - ie: exposed in the same anonymous manner. It's a lot harder to harass a random photograph.
Isn't the photograph itself, in context, already harmful? Yes, getting a knee in the junk hurts more than getting your wrist grabbed by a stranger, but by grabbing you the stranger takes on the role of the aggressor, and should be prepared to face consequences.
|
Its a nice idea, but i agree with so many other people. I just don't see how they can stop this.
|
On October 13 2012 06:57 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 06:41 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 13 2012 06:34 Scufo wrote:
You're comparing internet pictures to murder. I am done arguing. No, reread the post. I am not comparing murder to the situation at hand. I am merely using the concept of murder to demonstrate there exists an act widely considered to be unethical. This is brought up to counter your argument that people will be offended by everything and seemingly implying there should be no limits. I gave you a limit here. That wasn't part of his argument. Being offended by something isn't a reason for it to be wrong. The proof is in the fact that something offends everyone, which would make everything wrong. For instance, murder offends people, but that's not part of the ethical structure that tells us murder is wrong. Your bringing up murder as a "limit" isn't helpful either. What are you trying to reduce the discussion to? There exists something that is bad that's known as murder. If we could prove something were worse than murder, we'd know it was also beyond the limit. For instance, mass murder. But candid photography is nowhere near that line (which is not to say it is or isn't bad). So let's get back to Scufo's actual question: what's the actual harm here?
You guys are going off on a tangent about the meaning of the word "offended" and how I used the word semantically in my example. The point is not about people being "offended" making anything wrong. If you reread the context of the post where I used that word, I was trying to illustrate a point that what one person deems as not harmful is possibly very harmful to another person. Comparing it to being offended was merely a way to show how something can be relative. In this case, what is considered harmful is relative to the person. The possibility of how it can do harm has already been discussed in the previous pages and I am not going to rewrite the examples again. The "candid photography" here isn't used in an innocent and neutral context.
If you've been following my posts, then you would see that I am arguing that it is unethical because it is reasonably able to cause a decent amount of harm. Bringing up murder was simply to show the relationship between harm and ethics in which it seems likely you guys also agree it's manner of harming is unethical. That's what the idea of the "limit" is about. As in there is a reasonable line that people often can see a right and a wrong. There is a reasonable basis that the photos in this case can bring about harm. Therefore, they are also unethical. That line of argument is not arguing about degree. It doesn't concern itself with what issue is worse than another.
|
in general i'm really for freedom of expression and i'm pretty liberal
but i have to say that i'm not really offended by the idea of some of those sketchy bastards on reddit having their personal details published. they have no legitimate reason to need to be anonymous (as opposed to somebody speaking out against their oppressive government or something). that's simply who they are as people. people should be accountable for who they are.
that's why i'm sickened by 4chan. it is the asshole of the internet. it brings out the worst in people. and it holds nobody accountable for being a piece of shit.
|
On October 13 2012 12:36 anycolourfloyd wrote:
in general i'm really for freedom of expression and i'm pretty liberal
but i have to say that i'm not really offended by the idea of some of those sketchy bastards on reddit having their personal details published. they have no legitimate reason to need to be anonymous (as opposed to somebody speaking out against their oppressive government or something). that's simply who they are as people. people should be accountable for who they are.
that's why i'm sickened by 4chan. it is the asshole of the internet. it brings out the worst in people. and it holds nobody accountable for being a piece of shit.
the internet in general brings out the worst in people because its anonymous
|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 13 2012 12:43 askTeivospy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 12:36 anycolourfloyd wrote:
in general i'm really for freedom of expression and i'm pretty liberal
but i have to say that i'm not really offended by the idea of some of those sketchy bastards on reddit having their personal details published. they have no legitimate reason to need to be anonymous (as opposed to somebody speaking out against their oppressive government or something). that's simply who they are as people. people should be accountable for who they are.
that's why i'm sickened by 4chan. it is the asshole of the internet. it brings out the worst in people. and it holds nobody accountable for being a piece of shit. the internet in general brings out the worst in people because its anonymous
It can also bring out the best in people. Look at the services that some people provide for FREE! Yes some parts are bad and yes it can be quite disturbing. But is reality any different? Is the world perfect?
Much Cake
|
honestly, reddit has a whole bunch of fucked up subreddits that should be shut down.. like killingwomen and rapingwomen and beatingtrannies, shit is fucked up. and those fools that run reddit try to rid themselves of their responsibility to host their content on their pages by saying its the fault of the underage teen posting nudes, or the victim of the hate crime who is at fault for these subreddits.
|
On October 13 2012 07:30 nanoscorp wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 00:31 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:27 PassiveAce wrote:On October 13 2012 00:11 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:09 PassiveAce wrote:
I dont think that making someones body public is somehow less "wrong" then making someones address, name or phonenumber public. I'd agree with you if making said body public included making them easily identifiable to the internet. That is (I'd hope) rarely the case. It's creepy, but showing off a random person's appearance in public still invites less harm than making the details of their life public to others. I guess I have to concede your second point. It is much easier to cause deliberate harm to someone with that kind of personal information then with a picture. I still feel like that if your going to post embarrassing pictures of women on a public forum inhabited by teenagers with their dicks in their hands, then you should be prepared to be exposed yourself. I'd accept that if the conditions were the same - ie: exposed in the same anonymous manner. It's a lot harder to harass a random photograph. Isn't the photograph itself, in context, already harmful? Yes, getting a knee in the junk hurts more than getting your wrist grabbed by a stranger, but by grabbing you the stranger takes on the role of the aggressor, and should be prepared to face consequences.
Arguable. It's not a picture of something you don't want people to see - it's taken in public. It's not a picture that you'll know about, or that will affect you (assumption). I wouldn't say it causes outright harm. I would say people have a right to be annoyed and ask for the removal of said pictures.
|
On October 13 2012 13:54 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 07:30 nanoscorp wrote:On October 13 2012 00:31 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:27 PassiveAce wrote:On October 13 2012 00:11 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:09 PassiveAce wrote:
I dont think that making someones body public is somehow less "wrong" then making someones address, name or phonenumber public. I'd agree with you if making said body public included making them easily identifiable to the internet. That is (I'd hope) rarely the case. It's creepy, but showing off a random person's appearance in public still invites less harm than making the details of their life public to others. I guess I have to concede your second point. It is much easier to cause deliberate harm to someone with that kind of personal information then with a picture. I still feel like that if your going to post embarrassing pictures of women on a public forum inhabited by teenagers with their dicks in their hands, then you should be prepared to be exposed yourself. I'd accept that if the conditions were the same - ie: exposed in the same anonymous manner. It's a lot harder to harass a random photograph. Isn't the photograph itself, in context, already harmful? Yes, getting a knee in the junk hurts more than getting your wrist grabbed by a stranger, but by grabbing you the stranger takes on the role of the aggressor, and should be prepared to face consequences. Arguable. It's not a picture of something you don't want people to see - it's taken in public. It's not a picture that you'll know about, or that will affect you (assumption). I wouldn't say it causes outright harm. I would say people have a right to be annoyed and ask for the removal of said pictures.
A picture taken in public is not inherently bad and in general, people don't care. In this case, how that picture is being used is the issue. Maybe just maybe if the person who took the photo kept it to himself, then it would drastically minimize complaints because it's pretty much private and will never get out. It's very arguable that posting something onto a high traffic site like reddit or onto the internet in general can be considered negligible impact. I sure would not like to have a candid photo of myself even appearing on questionable websites. It's not even limited to the narrow scope of sexual issues. For example, I certainty don't want to have a photo of myself anywhere near a KKK affiliated site. I also don't want to have a photo of myself possibly used in an advertisement for a product I don't endorse (it's happened).
|
I came across this today and I thought it was funny. Oh reddit, you so crazy.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
And fucking Adrian Chen did it. I hope the guy gets trampled by ultralisks. Not linking it, basically gawker released everything they could including spamming his name, where he works and his photos on an article. Disgusting.
|
As creepy and weird as it might seem to take pictures/post pictures of girls like this, it's really kind of unstoppable. There should probably be a law in place that says that you're not just allowed to arbitrarily take a picture of some girl's ass if she doesn't want you to, but as much as you might try to stop people, it's not going to stop. The person running the 'Predditors' site is basically waging a war against sex, which is always a losing war.
|
On October 13 2012 14:14 DigitalDevil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 13:54 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 07:30 nanoscorp wrote:On October 13 2012 00:31 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:27 PassiveAce wrote:On October 13 2012 00:11 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:09 PassiveAce wrote:
I dont think that making someones body public is somehow less "wrong" then making someones address, name or phonenumber public. I'd agree with you if making said body public included making them easily identifiable to the internet. That is (I'd hope) rarely the case. It's creepy, but showing off a random person's appearance in public still invites less harm than making the details of their life public to others. I guess I have to concede your second point. It is much easier to cause deliberate harm to someone with that kind of personal information then with a picture. I still feel like that if your going to post embarrassing pictures of women on a public forum inhabited by teenagers with their dicks in their hands, then you should be prepared to be exposed yourself. I'd accept that if the conditions were the same - ie: exposed in the same anonymous manner. It's a lot harder to harass a random photograph. Isn't the photograph itself, in context, already harmful? Yes, getting a knee in the junk hurts more than getting your wrist grabbed by a stranger, but by grabbing you the stranger takes on the role of the aggressor, and should be prepared to face consequences. Arguable. It's not a picture of something you don't want people to see - it's taken in public. It's not a picture that you'll know about, or that will affect you (assumption). I wouldn't say it causes outright harm. I would say people have a right to be annoyed and ask for the removal of said pictures. A picture taken in public is not inherently bad and in general, people don't care. In this case, how that picture is being used is the issue. Maybe just maybe if the person who took the photo kept it to himself, then it would drastically minimize complaints because it's pretty much private and will never get out. It's very arguable that posting something onto a high traffic site like reddit or onto the internet in general can be considered negligible impact. I sure would not like to have a candid photo of myself even appearing on questionable websites. It's not even limited to the narrow scope of sexual issues. For example, I certainty don't want to have a photo of myself anywhere near a KKK affiliated site. I also don't want to have a photo of myself possibly used in an advertisement for a product I don't endorse (it's happened).
That's reasonable, but I don't think that this part of reddit is really considered a massively-trafficked area, and it's obvious that your picture there doesn't reflect on you (because it wasn't your choice).
|
Guess they found out Stephano was lurking around and had to shut it down before too much more damage was done...
|
On October 14 2012 01:03 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 14:14 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 13 2012 13:54 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 07:30 nanoscorp wrote:On October 13 2012 00:31 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:27 PassiveAce wrote:On October 13 2012 00:11 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:09 PassiveAce wrote:
I dont think that making someones body public is somehow less "wrong" then making someones address, name or phonenumber public. I'd agree with you if making said body public included making them easily identifiable to the internet. That is (I'd hope) rarely the case. It's creepy, but showing off a random person's appearance in public still invites less harm than making the details of their life public to others. I guess I have to concede your second point. It is much easier to cause deliberate harm to someone with that kind of personal information then with a picture. I still feel like that if your going to post embarrassing pictures of women on a public forum inhabited by teenagers with their dicks in their hands, then you should be prepared to be exposed yourself. I'd accept that if the conditions were the same - ie: exposed in the same anonymous manner. It's a lot harder to harass a random photograph. Isn't the photograph itself, in context, already harmful? Yes, getting a knee in the junk hurts more than getting your wrist grabbed by a stranger, but by grabbing you the stranger takes on the role of the aggressor, and should be prepared to face consequences. Arguable. It's not a picture of something you don't want people to see - it's taken in public. It's not a picture that you'll know about, or that will affect you (assumption). I wouldn't say it causes outright harm. I would say people have a right to be annoyed and ask for the removal of said pictures. A picture taken in public is not inherently bad and in general, people don't care. In this case, how that picture is being used is the issue. Maybe just maybe if the person who took the photo kept it to himself, then it would drastically minimize complaints because it's pretty much private and will never get out. It's very arguable that posting something onto a high traffic site like reddit or onto the internet in general can be considered negligible impact. I sure would not like to have a candid photo of myself even appearing on questionable websites. It's not even limited to the narrow scope of sexual issues. For example, I certainty don't want to have a photo of myself anywhere near a KKK affiliated site. I also don't want to have a photo of myself possibly used in an advertisement for a product I don't endorse (it's happened). That's reasonable, but I don't think that this part of reddit is really considered a massively-trafficked area, and it's obvious that your picture there doesn't reflect on you (because it wasn't your choice).
Whether there's heavy traffic or not doesn't take away from the fact that it's still publicly accessible though. And even if it does not reflect on me, it doesn't mean everyone will necessarily give me the benefit of the doubt. It's similar to the idea of rumors. Even when they are not true, it can still cause people to wonder. Tell someone not to think about something and they will likely think about it.
|
On October 13 2012 13:09 LarJarsE wrote:
honestly, reddit has a whole bunch of fucked up subreddits that should be shut down.. like killingwomen and rapingwomen and beatingtrannies, shit is fucked up. and those fools that run reddit try to rid themselves of their responsibility to host their content on their pages by saying its the fault of the underage teen posting nudes, or the victim of the hate crime who is at fault for these subreddits.
Yes reddit has other subreddits that should be shut down, but no, they don't justify illegal material that is posted to the site, and it is moderated against. And no, reddit moderators do not justify the actions of their user base blaming victims in cases where there are victims. The only justification you ever hear from reddit moderators that be construed as "protection" for people posting inflammatory material is that reddit runs itself as a public space, and as such they respect the legitimate free speech of it's users as much as they can.
|
On October 13 2012 22:17 SilverWolfe wrote:
As creepy and weird as it might seem to take pictures/post pictures of girls like this, it's really kind of unstoppable. There should probably be a law in place that says that you're not just allowed to arbitrarily take a picture of some girl's ass if she doesn't want you to, but as much as you might try to stop people, it's not going to stop. The person running the 'Predditors' site is basically waging a war against sex, which is always a losing war.
You're right, you can't stop this type of behavior. They'll most likely take their activities underground. However, what shutting down the channel accomplishes is by sending a message to the purveyors of creepshot telling them that their behavior is considered fringe by the greater society. This is significant on a site like Reddit that tries to present itself as somewhat mainstream(the POTUS just did an AMA with them!).
I find it strange that the more offensive killingwomen/rapingwomen channels are still up but it's creepshots that's been shut down.
|
Kinda glad this got shut down, other parts of reddits aren't that great either
|
Adrian Chen is a piece of trash, yellow journalist. That's all there is to it. It's odd how he could make me side with someone so anti-social and disturbing.
|
On October 14 2012 05:15 DigitalDevil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 01:03 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 14:14 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 13 2012 13:54 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 07:30 nanoscorp wrote:On October 13 2012 00:31 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:27 PassiveAce wrote:On October 13 2012 00:11 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:09 PassiveAce wrote:
I dont think that making someones body public is somehow less "wrong" then making someones address, name or phonenumber public. I'd agree with you if making said body public included making them easily identifiable to the internet. That is (I'd hope) rarely the case. It's creepy, but showing off a random person's appearance in public still invites less harm than making the details of their life public to others. I guess I have to concede your second point. It is much easier to cause deliberate harm to someone with that kind of personal information then with a picture. I still feel like that if your going to post embarrassing pictures of women on a public forum inhabited by teenagers with their dicks in their hands, then you should be prepared to be exposed yourself. I'd accept that if the conditions were the same - ie: exposed in the same anonymous manner. It's a lot harder to harass a random photograph. Isn't the photograph itself, in context, already harmful? Yes, getting a knee in the junk hurts more than getting your wrist grabbed by a stranger, but by grabbing you the stranger takes on the role of the aggressor, and should be prepared to face consequences. Arguable. It's not a picture of something you don't want people to see - it's taken in public. It's not a picture that you'll know about, or that will affect you (assumption). I wouldn't say it causes outright harm. I would say people have a right to be annoyed and ask for the removal of said pictures. A picture taken in public is not inherently bad and in general, people don't care. In this case, how that picture is being used is the issue. Maybe just maybe if the person who took the photo kept it to himself, then it would drastically minimize complaints because it's pretty much private and will never get out. It's very arguable that posting something onto a high traffic site like reddit or onto the internet in general can be considered negligible impact. I sure would not like to have a candid photo of myself even appearing on questionable websites. It's not even limited to the narrow scope of sexual issues. For example, I certainty don't want to have a photo of myself anywhere near a KKK affiliated site. I also don't want to have a photo of myself possibly used in an advertisement for a product I don't endorse (it's happened). That's reasonable, but I don't think that this part of reddit is really considered a massively-trafficked area, and it's obvious that your picture there doesn't reflect on you (because it wasn't your choice). Whether there's heavy traffic or not doesn't take away from the fact that it's still publicly accessible though. And even if it does not reflect on me, it doesn't mean everyone will necessarily give me the benefit of the doubt. It's similar to the idea of rumors. Even when they are not true, it can still cause people to wonder. Tell someone not to think about something and they will likely think about it.
By the nature of the subreddit and it's name, it's not a benefit of the doubt situation - it's the first conclusion that the picture isn't there by your choice.
|
On October 14 2012 17:28 armada[sb] wrote:
Adrian Chen is a piece of trash, yellow journalist. That's all there is to it. It's odd how he could make me side with someone so anti-social and disturbing.
No, he's a guy who quite rightly gave a career troll the arsekicking he deserved.
Frankly I think we should make life much harder for the guy.
Seriously. Speaking as a former teacher, if I found out one of my colleagues was posting pictures of his students on that subreddit, or I found out someone's father was doing it I'd be onto the cops faster than you could blink. Anyone who thought this was in any way "justified" should not only be ashamed of themselves but should grow the fuck up and drop their balls. Not only was this subreddit misogynist but it was abusive, illegal in a number of countries AND run by people who were clearly having a wank to it.
If there's ever been a good excuse for mandatory removal of testicles, /r/Creepshots is one of them.
|
On October 12 2012 10:59 hinnolinn wrote:
It's disturbing to me how many of you feel that pictures of unidentified people and information such as name, phone number, marital status, etc. are equal in terms of privacy.
NOTE- I AM NOT SAYING CREEPSHOTS ISN'T MORALLY WRONG
It was trivial to find out who it was. If you read Chen's post, he said all he had to do was match the voice to the one he had already identified.
This is not difficult. The guy was clearly loving his e-celebrity and he's gotten owned because of it. Fantastic. More trolls should be openly outed. This guy was not a fucking defender of free speech. The real defenders of free speech are out there right now, fighting for their lives in countries which ban even the slightest hint of dissent. They are risking their careers to break news of scandals within trusted public organisations.
They are NOT creepy fucks on reddit posting up skirt shots of someone's 15 year old daughter.
|
On October 14 2012 18:49 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:15 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 14 2012 01:03 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 14:14 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 13 2012 13:54 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 07:30 nanoscorp wrote:On October 13 2012 00:31 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:27 PassiveAce wrote:On October 13 2012 00:11 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:09 PassiveAce wrote:
I dont think that making someones body public is somehow less "wrong" then making someones address, name or phonenumber public. I'd agree with you if making said body public included making them easily identifiable to the internet. That is (I'd hope) rarely the case. It's creepy, but showing off a random person's appearance in public still invites less harm than making the details of their life public to others. I guess I have to concede your second point. It is much easier to cause deliberate harm to someone with that kind of personal information then with a picture. I still feel like that if your going to post embarrassing pictures of women on a public forum inhabited by teenagers with their dicks in their hands, then you should be prepared to be exposed yourself. I'd accept that if the conditions were the same - ie: exposed in the same anonymous manner. It's a lot harder to harass a random photograph. Isn't the photograph itself, in context, already harmful? Yes, getting a knee in the junk hurts more than getting your wrist grabbed by a stranger, but by grabbing you the stranger takes on the role of the aggressor, and should be prepared to face consequences. Arguable. It's not a picture of something you don't want people to see - it's taken in public. It's not a picture that you'll know about, or that will affect you (assumption). I wouldn't say it causes outright harm. I would say people have a right to be annoyed and ask for the removal of said pictures. A picture taken in public is not inherently bad and in general, people don't care. In this case, how that picture is being used is the issue. Maybe just maybe if the person who took the photo kept it to himself, then it would drastically minimize complaints because it's pretty much private and will never get out. It's very arguable that posting something onto a high traffic site like reddit or onto the internet in general can be considered negligible impact. I sure would not like to have a candid photo of myself even appearing on questionable websites. It's not even limited to the narrow scope of sexual issues. For example, I certainty don't want to have a photo of myself anywhere near a KKK affiliated site. I also don't want to have a photo of myself possibly used in an advertisement for a product I don't endorse (it's happened). That's reasonable, but I don't think that this part of reddit is really considered a massively-trafficked area, and it's obvious that your picture there doesn't reflect on you (because it wasn't your choice). Whether there's heavy traffic or not doesn't take away from the fact that it's still publicly accessible though. And even if it does not reflect on me, it doesn't mean everyone will necessarily give me the benefit of the doubt. It's similar to the idea of rumors. Even when they are not true, it can still cause people to wonder. Tell someone not to think about something and they will likely think about it. By the nature of the subreddit and it's name, it's not a benefit of the doubt situation - it's the first conclusion that the picture isn't there by your choice.
Whether it's your choice or not is irrelevant. Do you honestly believe every single person will assume the best of you? Hell, there's even someone in this thread who claimed most of the stuff on there are not really candid and are actually intentionally faked. How would you tell the difference? The person whose photo is obviously being inappropriately used here should have the right to say "no, you can't use my photo in that manner." It's completely backwards to defend the person mis-using the photo and say to the victim "don't worry, it wasn't your choice." The ethical line is not that hard to see and most of the creeps know they've crossed it but they hide behind "legality" and "freedom of speech".
On October 14 2012 17:28 armada[sb] wrote:
Adrian Chen is a piece of trash, yellow journalist. That's all there is to it. It's odd how he could make me side with someone so anti-social and disturbing.
Vigilantism is a double edged sword and honestly, it's not something I would suggest as the first solution. However, even if you disagree with it, why would you side with the douchebag he outted? It's not like the guy's worth sympathizing over. Reading up on his history, anyone would see that this guy is not even just an average douchebag but a disgusting person as a whole.
|
How is it that the same people who cry "Freedom of speech!" here are the ones who cry "Respect my right to privacy, 1984 man!" as soon as a discussion about CCTV comes up?
|
On October 14 2012 19:25 Slakter wrote:
How is it that the same people who cry "Freedom of speech!" here are the ones who cry "Respect my right to privacy, 1984 man!" as soon as a discussion about CCTV comes up?
People often cry freedom of speech over the internet when they're able to hide behind anonymity.
|
never heard of reddit, sounds like digg but more immature
|
Most reasonable people would act with some degree of courtesy in mind when it comes to real life because they know they would be directly accountable for their actions. Apparently, real life deals with the whole controversy of doxing just fine because there is no anonymity and that generally keeps people in check. The anonymity granted by the internet is a privilege, not a means for you to go around acting like a douche. If you're an outstanding douchebag on the internet and somehow get outted for it, don't play the victim. If you wouldn't do the same thing in real life because you knew there would be dire consequences, you're in no position to complain, simple as that. Acting like you're leading the fight to protect freedom of speech is complete bs when all the relevant cases shown are borderline troll attempts and/or barely legal. These types of people undermine the efforts of the real people that are actually putting in significant effort and sacrifice.
|
To update this thread for people who haven't seen the follow up story yet, Violentacrez was fired from his position:
Michael Brutsch, aka Reddit user "Violentacrez," was fired from his position at a financial services company after Gawker revealed his true identity.
Actions have consequences, which is something Michael Brutsch is just starting to learn.
Brutsch, aka "Violentacrez," was Reddit's biggest troll until Gawker exposed his true identify, revealing to the world the man behind questionable forums, such as r/creepshots -- a space dedicated to pictures of women unaware that their photographs had been taken.
Now that the 49-year-old from Arlington, Texas, has been outed, his behavior has caught up with him.
According to The Daily Dot, Brutsch was fired from his position at a financial services company less than 24 hours after Gawker editor Adrian Chen's exposé went live.
Before the article was published, Chen wrote that Brutsch pleaded with him not to reveal his identity, correctly fearing he would lose his job and his ability to provide for his family.
"My wife is disabled. I got a home and a mortgage, and if this hits the fan, I believe this will affect negatively on my employment," he told Gawker. "I do my job, go home watch TV, and go on the internet. I just like riling people up in my spare time."
In a phone conversation, Brutsch admitted to being the Reddit user named Violentacrez, who created or moderated sections dedicated to pornographic and violent images, including subreddits called r/rapebait, r/incest, r/picsofdeadkids, r/jailbait, and r/chokeabitch.
In the days leading up to the big reveal Brutsch deleted his Violentacrez account, and is now posting on Reddit using the account mbrutsch, reports the Daily Dot.
"Nothing like living in the US with a disabled wife and no health insurance," Brutsch wrote on Reddit after he lost his job.
“I'm eligible [for insurance], but COBRA is very expensive. Who can afford to pay 5 times as much for insurance at the very moment they lose their income? Only rich folks can afford COBRA. I have maybe 3 weeks pay in the bank. I just hope I can hold out a month. My wife hasn't been able to work for over a year, and our savings will last about 3 weeks, not considering the current lack of health insurance.”
Brutsch also posted a link to his Paypal account so that fellow Redditors could donate money to him now that he is unemployed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/michael-brutsch-reddits-biggest-loses-job-identity-gawker_n_1967727.html
Did anyone not see this coming?
|
How is it acceptable to post pictures of people that are unattractive and laugh at them but it's not acceptable to take pictures of ppl attractive?
|
On October 17 2012 00:59 raf3776 wrote:
How is it acceptable to post pictures of people that are unattractive and laugh at them but it's not acceptable to take pictures of ppl attractive?
I'm not sure exactly what this is in relation to, but I will mention the INCREDIBLE disparity in treatment most societies give to those who are deemed attractive by their standards and those who aren't is most likely not going away any time soon.
|
On October 17 2012 00:59 raf3776 wrote:
How is it acceptable to post pictures of people that are unattractive and laugh at them but it's not acceptable to take pictures of ppl attractive?
This kills any argument that speaks for shutting down 'creepshots', besides that sneaking pictures of fat people is also morally wrong, but I have never in my life seen any comment claiming that.
Makes me wonder where this hypocrisy comes from.
|
So people that take creepy pictures of women (underage or not) want their privacy respected?
|
On October 17 2012 01:11 Xiron wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 00:59 raf3776 wrote:
How is it acceptable to post pictures of people that are unattractive and laugh at them but it's not acceptable to take pictures of ppl attractive? This kills any argument that speaks for shutting down 'creepshots', besides that sneaking pictures of fat people is also morally wrong, but I have never in my life seen any comment claiming that. Makes me wonder where this hypocrisy comes from.
Does it? Would a claim of privacy being invaded being made by a larger or uglier person be any less valid than one made by someone who by societal standards is attractive?
|
You know, if you think it's so despicable that you don't want anyone to know about what you're doing... don't do it. If you think what you're doing is right, then you shouldn't care who knows.
|
On October 17 2012 01:29 rackdude wrote:
You know, if you think it's so despicable that you don't want anyone to know about what you're doing... don't do it. If you think what you're doing is right, then you shouldn't care who knows.
I don't agree with how generalized this statement is. There are a lot of things that are not wrong to do, but you still don't want everyone to know about, because it is none of their business, and people have a tendency to ostracize stuff that is not necessarily wrong. Let's say you like to smoke weed, and don't think it's wrong to do so. You still don't want it to be public knowledge because it is still illegal. Or you like to have sex with prostitutes, in a country where it is legal. Not any sex slaves from poor countries or anything like that, everything is completely clean. You are not married or have a girlfriend that you cheat on either. You still probably don't want all of your business associates and your mother to know about it, either.
This does not mean that there are no things that are wrong, or anything like that. Just that the fact that you want something to remain hidden does not prove that it is wrong and you should not be doing it.
|
Having seen some of the photos being discussed I really can't understand what's wrong with this, am I alone here?
I have a sister and wouldn't care in the slightest if people took photos of her and discussed them, nor would I care if people did the same about me. What harm are they doing if they don't disclose any personal info etc?
|
It's kind of typical reddit logic to violate people's privacy in a far greater way to show how they are against the violation of people's privacy.
I never saw the subreddit but it doesn't sound much different than laughing at the fat people at Walmart that people sneak pictures of, or the crazy people caught on youtube or WSHH. None of those people gave permission. This stance on privacy while in public seems to be entirely derived from white knighting.
I found this gif on the front page of Reddit, is this not an egregious violation of this girl's public privacy? Did she sign a consent form to be filmed?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/X7BWb.gif)
|
Nobody questions anything when the paparazzi get PAID to take pictures of famous people without their consent, but all of a sudden when it is not-famous people getting their pictures taken by people who do it only occasionally it is immoral and illegal? Not only that, but it is worth literally ruining 30+ people's lives over? Give me a break. Anyone that supports this sort of behavior needs to re-evaluate their entire world view.
|
"Violentacrez, who created or moderated sections dedicated to pornographic and violent images, including subreddits called r/rapebait, r/incest, r/picsofdeadkids, r/jailbait, and r/chokeabitch."
That's quite the resume.
|
On October 17 2012 01:47 Ryka wrote:
Having seen some of the photos being discussed I really can't understand what's wrong with this, am I alone here?
I have a sister and wouldn't care in the slightest if people took photos of her and discussed them, nor would I care if people did the same about me. What harm are they doing if they don't disclose any personal info etc?
You should ask her whether she would care if the photos being taken were without her knowledge or consent, and taken in what could be an explicit manner, along with being prime masturbatory material. If she responds negatively, then I think you may have some justification for feeling that way, but I'm going to make an assumption and say she probably will care.
Men don't have to deal with the same things as women on a broad societal basis (personal safety, sexual assault, discrimination, among other things), so I wouldn't extend the notion of others, especially females, sharing your feelings too far.
|
HEY, MAYBE WE SHOULD GET RID OF REDDIT, ALTOGETHER. i mean really can we be mad about it if we subscribe to the site. The site's contents are submitted by its users.
Or these guys should be charged with invasion of privacy or unsolicited photography when they take creepshots.
|
There should be no assumption that a person is entitled to complete anonymity on the internet, particularly when creating and moderating forums called "r/rapebait, r/incest, r/picsofdeadkids, r/jailbait, and r/chokeabitch."
Whether his employer was justified in sacking him (issue for employment tribunal) is entirely separate to his right to protection of identity online.
I do believe that it is incorrect to actively encourage off-line harassment while divulging a person's identity, and this should be compared to off-line encouragement of harassment of another person, but I defintiely believe that there is no inherent right to protect your name from being displayed online, particularly if this information is already available online (albeit with a bit of investigation)
|
On October 17 2012 02:01 Positronic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 01:47 Ryka wrote:
Having seen some of the photos being discussed I really can't understand what's wrong with this, am I alone here?
I have a sister and wouldn't care in the slightest if people took photos of her and discussed them, nor would I care if people did the same about me. What harm are they doing if they don't disclose any personal info etc? You should ask her whether she would care if the photos being taken were without her knowledge or consent, and taken in what could be an explicit manner, along with being prime masturbatory material. If she responds negatively, then I think you may have some justification for feeling that way, but I'm going to make an assumption and say she probably will care. Men don't have to deal with the same things as women on a broad societal basis (personal safety, sexual assault, discrimination, among other things), so I wouldn't extend the notion of others, especially females, sharing your feelings too far.
Not sure exactly what you mean by "what could be an explicit manner" as I haven't seen anything I'd consider to be explicit.
Care to give an example? PM if necessary. If any of these photos are explicit then I've missed the point of it completely.
|
United States42249 Posts
On October 17 2012 01:29 rackdude wrote:
You know, if you think it's so despicable that you don't want anyone to know about what you're doing... don't do it. If you think what you're doing is right, then you shouldn't care who knows.
This is absurd. Everyone has things that they do which they'd not want the rest of the world to do, the majority of which don't hurt anyone else. Saying that if you want to keep something private then it's probably wrong is a horrible repressive mentality.
|
On October 17 2012 01:58 Jonas wrote:Nobody questions anything when the paparazzi get PAID to take pictures of famous people without their consent, but all of a sudden when it is not-famous people getting their pictures taken by people who do it only occasionally it is immoral and illegal? Not only that, but it is worth literally ruining 30+ people's lives over? Give me a break. Anyone that supports this sort of behavior needs to re-evaluate their entire world view.
Fair point. The paparazzi snap a photo of britney spears not wearing panties and its all over the news. It is indeed questionable behavior. A photographer should respect his subject and use discretion when they get a hold of something that may embarrass someone. It definitely isn't news and it definitely isn't right. Movie stars should be able to sue or be angry like any one else who feels their privacy is violated for monetary gain or just for kicks.
|
Keep in mind some of the backstory of this. People like violentacrez are what made reddit big in the first place (porn content -> lots of clicks -> money) and in his case specifically he was moderating more than hundred subreddits, a lot of them without NSFW content. Add to that his position on the issue ("SOMEONE has to moderate this stuff, it's a moderators job to remove the illegal content without judging the rest") and you come up with a more detailed picture than ARRWWWRAWRRR CHILDPORN RAWRAWRAWR. =P
I mean, I think some of those subreddits are disgusting too the big point here is that IF they are, in general, considered to be okay from the reddit.com side (and apparently some of those are), then bitchslapping the people who fill that gap and aim to make it flourish and moderate it properly is the wrong move. Reddit could have removed those subs whenever they pleased - they didn't. Now we're left with a private campaign against one of the moderators sucessfully ruining his life.
I completely agreed with the public pressure on /r/Jailbait which resulted in it being closed and the policies on stuff that was in it being reviewed, that's how these things should be handled. Not with withhunts on individuals further down the ladder like that.
|
I think TL should institute an anti-reddit policy for anything non SC2 or DOTA2, this shit is just getting stupid.
|
New York Times has an article about this subforum being banned. Excerpt from the article -
The challenge for communities like Reddit — as well as for Pinterest, Instagram, Tumblr and others that have to decide how to regulate the materials passed around their virtual corridors, is to figure out how to please all their members, without driving some of them away. And one has to look only at the previous glory of social giants like Myspace, Friendster and Digg, and at how rarely they are currently mentioned, to understand how fragile the line is between life and death for a site.
BUT the larger risk that Reddit runs could be even greater. The harder it fights for its right to publish creepshots, the harder it may be to defend the company from the intervention of governments and regulatory organizations, as well as intellectual-property owners who could interfere with the site if it does not figure out how to regulate itself.
Link to article - When the Web's Chaos Takes an Ugly Turn
|
On October 13 2012 20:51 Microchaton wrote:
And fucking Adrian Chen did it. I hope the guy gets trampled by ultralisks. Not linking it, basically gawker released everything they could including spamming his name, where he works and his photos on an article. Disgusting.
Not surprised. Gawker journalists would sell their mothers for pageviews anyway.
On October 17 2012 01:57 floor exercise wrote:I found this gif on the front page of Reddit, is this not an egregious violation of this girl's public privacy? Did she sign a consent form to be filmed?
This gif was obviously made from a TV broadcasting. So what is your suggestion? Prevent TV stations from doing crowd shots? Make everyone entering a stadium sign a consent form? Or just allow it on TV but not on the internet? What about ESPN then since they also stream matches on the web?
It just doesn't make sense. When you're at home other people should not be allowed to invade your privacy but when you're in a stadium or at Starbucks you're in a public place so deal with it.
|
Reddit is just the 4chan of the weak-minded, e-peen obsessed basement dwellers.
On October 17 2012 02:24 Battleaxe wrote:
I think TL should institute an anti-reddit policy for anything non SC2 or DOTA2, this shit is just getting stupid.
I second this. It's not the asshole of the internet, but it's pretty close to the intestines nonetheless.
|
On October 21 2012 09:23 Matoo- wrote:
This gif was obviously made from a TV broadcasting. So what is your suggestion? Prevent TV stations from doing crowd shots? Make everyone entering a stadium sign a consent form? Or just allow it on TV but not on the internet? What about ESPN then since they also stream matches on the web?
It just doesn't make sense. When you're at home other people should not be allowed to invade your privacy but when you're in a stadium or at Starbucks you're in a public place so deal with it.
By attending a private event like a baseball game, you fall under the rules applied within that space, which often contain the permission to be filmed.
The street, on the contrary, are a public spaces, and filming people there requires their explicit authorization, unless you're filming an anonymous crowd.
|
I think this is just fine to be honest, I've got one word for this 'OWNED'. The way they find out the photographer is probably by looking at some info in pictures if its taken by phones? I can't think of anything else at least, and the 'smart ones' avoid that.
|
On October 21 2012 09:37 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 09:23 Matoo- wrote:
This gif was obviously made from a TV broadcasting. So what is your suggestion? Prevent TV stations from doing crowd shots? Make everyone entering a stadium sign a consent form? Or just allow it on TV but not on the internet? What about ESPN then since they also stream matches on the web?
It just doesn't make sense. When you're at home other people should not be allowed to invade your privacy but when you're in a stadium or at Starbucks you're in a public place so deal with it. By attending a private event like a baseball game, you fall under the rules applied within that space, which often contain the permission to be filmed. The street, on the contrary, are a public spaces, and filming people there requires their explicit authorization, unless you're filming an anonymous crowd.
If the stadium is privately owned then you are right, they can have their own set of rules.
However I don't see any mention of this "anyonymous crowd" stuff in public places, every source I found says that in the USA you can take a picture or video of someone (i.e. it doesn't have to be a "crowd", the picture/video can have a clear focus on one person), as long as they're not children and you're not releasing personal information about them or trying to sell it for money. Do you have a source for what you're saying?
|
On October 21 2012 09:59 Matoo- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 09:37 Kukaracha wrote:On October 21 2012 09:23 Matoo- wrote:
This gif was obviously made from a TV broadcasting. So what is your suggestion? Prevent TV stations from doing crowd shots? Make everyone entering a stadium sign a consent form? Or just allow it on TV but not on the internet? What about ESPN then since they also stream matches on the web?
It just doesn't make sense. When you're at home other people should not be allowed to invade your privacy but when you're in a stadium or at Starbucks you're in a public place so deal with it. By attending a private event like a baseball game, you fall under the rules applied within that space, which often contain the permission to be filmed. The street, on the contrary, are a public spaces, and filming people there requires their explicit authorization, unless you're filming an anonymous crowd. If the stadium is privately owned then you are right, they can have their own set of rules. However I don't see any mention of this "anyonymous crowd" stuff in public places, every source I found says that in the USA you can take a picture or video of someone (i.e. it doesn't have to be a "crowd", the picture/video can have a clear focus on one person), as long as they're not children and you're not releasing personal information about them or trying to sell it for money. Do you have a source for what you're saying?
Notice he is also from France btw. How is USA that relevant?
|
On October 21 2012 10:05 Roflhaxx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 09:59 Matoo- wrote:On October 21 2012 09:37 Kukaracha wrote:On October 21 2012 09:23 Matoo- wrote:
This gif was obviously made from a TV broadcasting. So what is your suggestion? Prevent TV stations from doing crowd shots? Make everyone entering a stadium sign a consent form? Or just allow it on TV but not on the internet? What about ESPN then since they also stream matches on the web?
It just doesn't make sense. When you're at home other people should not be allowed to invade your privacy but when you're in a stadium or at Starbucks you're in a public place so deal with it. By attending a private event like a baseball game, you fall under the rules applied within that space, which often contain the permission to be filmed. The street, on the contrary, are a public spaces, and filming people there requires their explicit authorization, unless you're filming an anonymous crowd. If the stadium is privately owned then you are right, they can have their own set of rules. However I don't see any mention of this "anyonymous crowd" stuff in public places, every source I found says that in the USA you can take a picture or video of someone (i.e. it doesn't have to be a "crowd", the picture/video can have a clear focus on one person), as long as they're not children and you're not releasing personal information about them or trying to sell it for money. Do you have a source for what you're saying? Notice he is also from France btw. How is USA that relevant?
The creepy redditor that got outed is from the USA right? Seems logical to me to consider US law.
|
I guess Facebook is the largest creep shot site ever then ^^
On the matter, I think both side are equally stupid.
_ Everyone should know by now that making people angry by stalking them and laughing about it is asking to get a punch in the face (on the net or IRL).
_ Everyone should also know by now that responding to a bully with a bigger bully is a good way to make the level of supidness and violence increase, and to turn the original bully into a martyr..
Conclusion:
"Quand on est con on est con"
Brassens
|
On October 21 2012 09:37 Kukaracha wrote:
The street, on the contrary, are a public spaces, and filming people there requires their explicit authorization, unless you're filming an anonymous crowd.
That's actually not true. You're legally allowed to photograph anything visible to the naked eye in a public place as long as you don't use any special equipment (telephoto lens, hidden camera, etc). It's not legal to publish those images, but I'm not convinced that posting the photo to reddit counts as publishing, it's more like sharing.
edit: in the US, that is.
|
Amateurs. Don't they know if they want to take pictures of hot girls you just need to get an SLR, ask her up front and say it's for your "street fashion blog"?
|
On October 17 2012 02:08 RoyW wrote:
There should be no assumption that a person is entitled to complete anonymity on the internet, particularly when creating and moderating forums called "r/rapebait, r/incest, r/picsofdeadkids, r/jailbait, and r/chokeabitch."
Whether his employer was justified in sacking him (issue for employment tribunal) is entirely separate to his right to protection of identity online.
I do believe that it is incorrect to actively encourage off-line harassment while divulging a person's identity, and this should be compared to off-line encouragement of harassment of another person, but I defintiely believe that there is no inherent right to protect your name from being displayed online, particularly if this information is already available online (albeit with a bit of investigation)
The bolded part is a huge thing in this story. You won't find the guys name in question even via a LOT of investigation. Apparently it had to be some people among the higher up reddit mods who gave Adrien Chen that information, which is simply not acceptable. Especially considering how highly reddit values personal information if you believe their... propaganda.
|
@floor exercise that might have been the stupidest post I've read in several weeks. You cherry picked a cute gif of a girl reacting to being filmed on national television from last year. Then you compared it to pictures taken without knowledge.
Wow.
On October 17 2012 02:07 BerkmanZ wrote:
HEY, MAYBE WE SHOULD GET RID OF REDDIT, ALTOGETHER. i mean really can we be mad about it if we subscribe to the site. The site's contents are submitted by its users.
Or these guys should be charged with invasion of privacy or unsolicited photography when they take creepshots.
I know of no such laws and I challenge you to post them. Also, what a silly argument. If I subscribe to a thread on team liquid I am not liable if a user is banned for an insipid post. If I read the front page of reddit, that doesn't make me a regular on GoneWild.
|
On October 21 2012 09:23 Matoo- wrote:
This gif was obviously made from a TV broadcasting. So what is your suggestion? Prevent TV stations from doing crowd shots? Make everyone entering a stadium sign a consent form? Or just allow it on TV but not on the internet?
that's actually how it works, when you give your consent to a reporter to use a picture of you in the local newspaper because you just won a charity marathon, the media is defined in the act of consent
if someone publish the same picture on TV or internet without making you sign the proper act of consent then it's illegal
that's how it works in most of the world i believe
the fact that the internet believe image rights, copy rights and more... don't exist is irrelevant
On October 17 2012 02:24 Battleaxe wrote:
I think TL should institute an anti-reddit policy for anything non SC2 or DOTA2, this shit is just getting stupid.
reddit (well...stupid people on reddit) is the reason our sponsors get mailed with bullshit
reddit (and stupid people) shouldn't have the right to talk about anything slightly related to sc2 or esport
|
internet is full of creeps, but meh, watcha gonna do about it. It's not like they can ban all the IPs and close all those websites
|
On October 21 2012 13:16 DOUDOU wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 09:23 Matoo- wrote:
This gif was obviously made from a TV broadcasting. So what is your suggestion? Prevent TV stations from doing crowd shots? Make everyone entering a stadium sign a consent form? Or just allow it on TV but not on the internet? that's actually how it works, when you give your consent to a reporter to use a picture of you in the local newspaper because you just won a charity marathon, the media is defined in the act of consent if someone publish the same picture on TV or internet without making you sign the proper act of consent then it's illegal that's how it works in most of the world i believe
This isn't true at all. That girl is unlikely to have signed a release, and the collection of people behind her in the crowd certainly have not. If reporters and photographers had to collect media releases from every person in a crowd shot at a stadium, nothing would ever get published.
It varies a little by country (so I'm about to make some blanket statements that may not be true in specific places), but a release is usually only required if the image is used for promotional purposes.
The most obvious promotional purpose is advertising - eg. your face on a billboard - but can also include less obvious things like being on the cover of a magazine or newspaper, since that's what people see when they consider buying it. In these cases, the subject will often be paid prior to or as part of signing the release. Note that this does not apply to a random photo on page 22.
In a lot of Western countries, people do not have the right not to be photographed. Simply having a photo of you published somewhere doesn't constitute an offense or require your consent, unless it's promotional or indecent, defamatory or otherwise a gross violation of privacy. Those metrics tend to be deployed on a case-by-case basis.
For creepshots, the images are indecent violations of privacy, so they do fail, but taking a person's photo without consent and posting it on the internet is not, in itself, an illegal act
|
i was just refering to the "just allow it on TV but not on the internet?"
|
If you are video taped in a public place your image can be used on any news broadcast or any rebroadcast of it. That is covered by the first amendment.
If you are filmed by a cameraman as part of a show that will be sold for profit and aired they must obtain a signed release.
Furthermore, most football stadiums are not public spaces. The people in that crowd purchased tickets to watch the game and waived consent to be filmed.
|
I don't get it, cant people just report Reddit, and its users to the government and throw them in jail, it's that bloody simple, just imagine if one of you guys daughter or wife were on Reddit, please just think about that for a second
|
Believe it or not, no, we can't arrest people that aren't committing crimes. Or arrest people retroactively with new laws for old crimes. Read more here
You'll notice that the pictures of children or anything that looks like it was taken through a bedroom window was in fact reported to the police.
|
lol still can't believe the President did an AMA on that terrible, perv-filled site.
|
Lot of thin skin on this website. This shit is always going to happen stop trying to whitenight it. The more attention you give it the bigger it gets.
|
I thought we had laws for internet bullies like this?
|
People looking at other people! Terrible! I demand death sentence.
|
yeah morons pollute the internet with their garbage... doesn't sound like new stuff to me
|
On October 17 2012 01:57 floor exercise wrote:It's kind of typical reddit logic to violate people's privacy in a far greater way to show how they are against the violation of people's privacy. I never saw the subreddit but it doesn't sound much different than laughing at the fat people at Walmart that people sneak pictures of, or the crazy people caught on youtube or WSHH. None of those people gave permission. This stance on privacy while in public seems to be entirely derived from white knighting. I found this gif on the front page of Reddit, is this not an egregious violation of this girl's public privacy? Did she sign a consent form to be filmed? + Show Spoiler +
Hey buddy I found a new gif from the game yesterday that you can use for your awesome argument
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YMrPy.gif)
Let's all save these poor victims of online predation. If only they knew people were watching 
To people I'm not directly making fun of: I don't mean the people who were posted on creepshots I mean these two gifs, chill.
|
On October 21 2012 14:22 broz0rs wrote:
lol still can't believe the President did an AMA on that terrible, perv-filled site.
Yeah cause one board really represents all of the users right .. making comments like these makes you more an idiot than those "pervs"
|
United States42249 Posts
On October 21 2012 14:22 broz0rs wrote:
lol still can't believe the President did an AMA on that terrible, perv-filled site.
He did it on that perv infested internet, it's full of porn.
|
On October 21 2012 20:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 14:22 broz0rs wrote:
lol still can't believe the President did an AMA on that terrible, perv-filled site. He did it on that perv infested internet, it's full of porn.
He did it on a perv-filled planet. It's full of murderers, rapists, thieves, pedophiles, catholic priests, idiots and assholes.
|
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.
|
SRS strikes again!
And there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth among the Redditors... but then they went back to their porno sites with stolen usernames and passwords off Pastebin.
|
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.
|
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.
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:Show nested quote +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.
|
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"?
|
On October 23 2012 03:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 02:56 Dfgj wrote: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"?
No, because we already know who Sarah Palin is. She is a public figure.
If I was to post that sc2superfan101 was actually Sarah Palin, and link her FB on top of that, that might be different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d113/DJZapZ/id4LV.png)
