Going out on a limb here, but having seen you “vitriolicly arguing” on the subject of gun control, I’m going to suggest that perhaps your idea of what’s considered excessive behaviour online and other people’s might not be exactly the same. Just sayin’, no offence intended.
1 Like
So let’s get clear what you’re really talking about in 2014: Don’t put your pictures online.
Some pictures, yes.
Don’t take them with your phone, don’t let your partner take them with their phone
Unless you are willing to treat the device in which they are stored with the kind of care you should.
don’t let them take your picture with their digital camera that triggers iPhoto when plugged into a laptop.
lol. iphoto. 'nuff said. turn it off.
Don’t take them on film - we all learned THAT from the days of the 1-hour-photomat! Don’t have your picture taken when you’re not aware your picture is being taken. Don’t perform somewhere that allows photos to be taken, or even somewhere that bans cameras because you never know. Don’t expose yourself to having your photo taken, even clothed, because someone could 'shop your head onto a porn pic. Don’t even release any professionally-taken photos of yourself, anywhere, because see “'shop your head onto a porn pic.” Essentially, don’t have any kind of public life, don’t have a web page, don’t have a career, don’t leave your home unless you’re in a burka because someone might snap your photo, or pluck it off the web, or steal it from a stolen phone, or the cloud, and use it to harass you and try to wreck your life.
…because I said all of this where?
No offence taken.
I’m not talking about the behaviour, I’m talking about the length of the ban.
Well, despite your claim that you “would personally bash to death anyone who makes or distributes” child porn, I haven’t seen you come even close to suggesting that you think this should be done to anyone on reddit (or elsewhere) who uploaded/downloaded/shared these images. Instead, you seem to be saying they haven’t been proven to be underage photos—with the clear implication that the photographer/victim’s word isn’t sufficient, and that random speculation from people who know neither the victim nor when she took the pictures is at least as creditable—and that since we aren’t 100% sure she was actually16 these stolen images are OK until proven otherwise.
As I’ve said elsewhere, in the world as it exists you are opening yourself up to liability and data breaches when you use your credit cards at places like Target and Home Depot. If your details are leaked or hacked, by your logic you should also be to blame for disclosing your payment and credit details to these people who haven’t properly secured your data. Let me know if this is a mistaken understanding of the world as it exists, whether it makes sharing of the financial details of hundreds of millions of people as acceptable as the fappening, and/or whether the victims of these data leaks are as blameworthy as JLaw et al.
2 Likes
Ah, I see you’ve reverted to your classic: mischaracterise my arguments and then argue against that.
See ya.
1 Like
Copyright violation is not “ACTUAL THEFT,” as has been pointed out here many many times before. Torrenting a movie or an album, while usually illegal, does not deprive the owners of possession of the same; neither does posting someone else’s nude selfies without consent.
I’m not trying to defend this douchebag’s actions, but you can’t have it both ways — calling it “THEFT!!!” when it suits your purposes and falling back on linguistic niceties when it doesn’t.
3 Likes
Well, after a fashion, it is theft, quite apart from the copyright considerations: it’s a theft of privacy, no? That certainly isn’t true of torrenting a movie, whatever other legal and moral considerations may apply.
4 Likes
My point is that whether it’s shared extremely publicly or only in the hidden recesses of teh interwebs, it’s there. I already stated that I don’t like reddit particularly, and this self centered asshole is IMO a pretty representative poster boy. The AMAs are very interesting as are the IAmA posts but it’s otherwise just such a self-congratulating waste of time.
I just want to address your point about whether the images are stolen or not. Much like the Bad Car Analogy, I like to consider this not so much a case of “theft” but of “burglary”: the bad analogy is where Person A has a safety deposit box in Bank B, and Person C manages to either break into the bank or use forged keys and ID to gain access to the lock box, make a copy of the documents and photos that were contained, leaving the originals in the box after the getaway.
This is why this is a different issue than piracy, as there was an intrusion necessary to get the originals. And the guy whining here is to me is just that, a whiner. Sure, he might not have been one of the original fences, but the whole raison d’être was to give away these illicitly gained copies.
2 Likes
By creating the same kind of social stigma you see with bigotry or domestic violence. Basically, “guys, don’t do that”.
The majority of people who downloaded the “big fat torrent” did it because they couldn’t see the harm in it. The better educated these people are about privacy, decency, and empathy, the less likely they are going to do this kind of thing in the future.
Assuming you believe that most people are fundamentally good.
3 Likes
Think burglary instead of theft: the originals were never distributed but kept in a “vault”. To obtain them, some form of trespassing was needed to at least gain access to the insides of that vault. That makes it different from copying without permission, as there wasn’t even permission to access the originals!
(edited to fix a typo)
1 Like
This guy is a dick.
However, my issue is with the headline. Could someone point out where it says he is upset at his invasion of privacy? I can’t find it.
Like I said, that is an entirely worthwhile aim, but you will never be able to shame everyone. Some people don’t care. Some people like any sort of attention. Bigotry, domestic violence, drink driving and… Whatever other selfishness you care to list exist in even the most well educated, well intentioned places.
What precise harm, apart from the perceived or real harm to the depicted person’s reputation, is there from downloading and viewing a cache of images? Did you see that shit that got leaked from a (Arizona IIRC) US police dept as revenge during the whole lulzsec thing? I did. What real-world consequence was there of me seeing that? Likewise, what would be the real-world implications or consequences of a person viewing these pics?
Assuming you believe that most people are fundamentally good.
I’d say most people are fundamentally good: when they think someone is watching. The prectage that is fundamentally good all the time is up for debate.
I agree and am not conflating it with piracy, but the aspect of the story that is going on on reddit is analogous. The same thing happens with piracy too, when an album ends up leaked before its official release. Obviously in that case the ‘breach’ is usually organisational and not technical, but the outcome is the same.
It’s a violation of privacy. Trespass and peeping are the correct metaphors, not burglary. I don’t know how the stalking laws are written but if and when they are updated for online stalking, they’ll have to lean more on trespass than burglary. In no way does this excuse the violation, but this is the wrong place to make the theft versus copy error.
3 Likes
Unlike others, I think this is both theft (even if there is subsidiary copying).
If you have a private video in a vault, and that video gets stolen and then circulated, there is both theft of the tangible videotape as well as copying of the tape after the theft. This is very different than simply copying something that has already been released to the wild, such as a movie, because in that case the copiers do not have to wrest the original data from the control of someone else.
1 Like
If the phones were taken, this analogy would work, but simply calling an act theft doesn’t make it actual theft. Espionage, trespass, harassment, these concepts work just fine already for what happened. Theft doesn’t.
The real issue is the organized voyeurism of women, most often unconsented, of which thefappening was only one of hundreds of similar outlets that still exist on reddit.
2 Likes
This issue is reminding me of hate crime legislation and the neverending debate about whether that it was a real crime or not. We didn’t call that “theft of civil rights”. I think the only reason we talk about this situation as “theft” is because of the overblown conflation of copying with theft that the IP lawyer industry has been trying to snooker the world with for the last 20 years.
“Piracy” or “theft of image” doesn’t cover this particular crime at all. It’s a form of sexual harassment, and the name of the crime should reflect the peeping, tresspassing, misogynist nature of it.
4 Likes
I never said he was selling the information. I said he was helping to distribute. It was just an analogy.
2 Likes
Again, as someone who was once FORCED TO RESIGN BECAUSE OF REVENGE PORN: fuck off with your dismissive attitude.
3 Likes
