|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
Leisher 
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
 |
Posted on: Jun. 05 2013,07:41 |
|
   |
New law would make it a crime.
I support this law.
I rank posting photos or videos of your ex right up there with fucking with someone's car or someone's food that you're preparing. It's a coward move, and devoid of class.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
TheCatt
Top 2%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 22951
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 05 2013,07:43 |
|
 |
I'm torn. On the one hand these people have a reasonable expectation of privacy given the state of the relationship and the private nature of the photos.
On the other hand, bewbs.
--------------
It's not me, it's someone else.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
GORDON
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 05 2013,07:47 |
|
|
I could see it being abused. Chick finds her private photos online, knows who took him, but instead accuses the other ex she really hates.
Now defend against that.
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
GORDON
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 05 2013,07:51 |
|
|
(Leisher @ Jun. 05 2013,10:48)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Jun. 05 2013,10:47)
QUOTE I could see it being abused. Chick finds her private photos online, knows who took him, but instead accuses the other ex she really hates.
Now defend against that. If only there were some way to track who posted files online and whatnot...
And can you see local police having the first clue how to do that?
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 05 2013,08:33 |
|
|
You can fake up IPs, packets, requests etc., with a very high success rate. This is doubly true for soft targets.
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 05 2013,08:41 |
|
|
QUOTE And can you see local police having the first clue how to do that?
Really? "Let's just not try" is the stance you're taking?
Why bother doing anything ever? People will just fuck it up!
QUOTE I could fake it. Make it look like the target posted them.
I could murder someone and frame you. Should we stop investigating murders?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 05 2013,08:53 |
|
|
QUOTE I could murder someone and frame you. Should we stop investigating murders?
Getting away with a fake image post today is about as difficult as getting away with murder 500 years ago in the remote wastes of Siberia.
QUOTE And can you see local police having the first clue how to do that?
Some branches of law enforcement are just becoming convinced of the value of the new fangled technology called "the telegraph." The actual beat cops might not be techie savants, but I'd wager they all got the contact info for some computer forensic dude they can call in.
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 05 2013,08:59 |
|
|
So your argument is that we shouldn't pass laws that might protect people's rights not to have their private images put online for the world to see because too much of law enforcement is just starting to get the proper technology and know how to enforce these laws?
Considering it's still impossible to solve all murders, I guess we need to eliminate those laws too.
Had you been around when fire was invented, we wouldn't be having this conversation because we'd be extinct.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
GORDON
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 05 2013,09:10 |
|
|
(Leisher @ Jun. 05 2013,11:41)
QUOTE QUOTE I could fake it. Make it look like the target posted them. I could murder someone and frame you. Should we stop investigating murders?
You seem to be comparing the frequency of people getting framed for murder with the frequency of a woman doing something vindictive and evil because her feelings got hurt.
And frankly, no, I don't think they should even try in this instance, because your choice is to spend thousands on lawyers to defend yourself, or go to jail. Men already get to enjoy that experience with bullshit rape accusations.
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 05 2013,09:30 |
|
|
QUOTE ...and that's never a good way to run a legal system.
"Reasonable doubt"
"Probable cause"
"Reasonable suspicion"
Our legal system is full of vague, hand-wavey bullshit already. I won't even get into divorce law and parental rights, and such insanity.
QUOTE So your argument is that we shouldn't pass laws that might protect people's rights not to have their private images put online for the world to see because too much of law enforcement is just starting to get the proper technology and know how to enforce these laws?
When law enforcement is so slow to adapt to the technological reality of the times that the private citizen's savvy is light-years ahead of them, laws like this give me pause because they have the potential to get abused and cause more problems than they solve.
We've already presented some arguments that have someone feigning victim status to fuck over someone's life. Look at the defense from the other side.
"No those aren't pornographic images, they're art. Can't you tell? They're all black and white, and I used a photometer to get the light just right. I'm an amateur photographer and filmmaker in my spare time. In fact, you can check her e-mail history and look at a few times when she tried to e-mail these very images off to Playboy to earn some spare cash."
QUOTE The infinite plasticity of the digital.
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 05 2013,12:43 |
|
|
QUOTE You seem to be comparing the frequency of people getting framed for murder with the frequency of a woman doing something vindictive and evil because her feelings got hurt.
And frankly, no, I don't think they should even try in this instance, because your choice is to spend thousands on lawyers to defend yourself, or go to jail. Men already get to enjoy that experience with bullshit rape accusations.
You logic is the same as schools and their zero tolerance gun policies. I cannot debate an illogical argument.
And why is it just women who will do the accusing? Racist.
QUOTE Of course not. The crimes are hardly parallel.
Let me ask you this: what would be the burden of proof to prove the images were in fact posted by the accused? If we can come up with a legitimate way to establish it that is at least reasonably plausible and not prone to being absurdly easy to spoof, then let's do it. I can't think of a way. But then I haven't tried very hard yet.
Without some sort of evidence every case would just come down to he-said-she-said, and that's never a good way to run a legal system.
Go find the thread I posted within the last few months about the rising number of suicides thanks to internet bullying and posting of private pictures like the ones discussed here.
Is it homicide? No, but it does ruin lives, and has led to some ending.
(And I use murder because while the scale of the crime isn't the same, the rest of the parallels are, plus I love to use extremes in my examples.)
We're now in a world where potential employers google you, and you shouldn't lose out on your ability to make a living at a good job because your ex-boyfriend or girlfriend is petty.
And while like ANY crime, innocent people could be targeted by malicious folks, is that really going to happen often enough that we're ok with all the actual victims suffering?
As for proof, who, aside from you guys, has suggested that the burden of proof wouldn't apply to this crime? Of course it would apply, and you're over looking possession. You're overlooking all the great examples we've had of guys or gals doing vile shit to their exs that involved photos/videos.
Are we talking a 100% conviction rate for this crime? No. However, we are talking about consequences. That means those guilty can be investigated and hopefully caught, and it's a deterrent to folks who aren't tech savvy enough to hide their tracks.
Again, if you cannot 100% prove it, no conviction. It's a standard we are supposed to hold to ALL cases here in the U.S.
QUOTE "Reasonable doubt"
"Probable cause"
"Reasonable suspicion"
Our legal system is full of vague, hand-wavey bullshit already. I won't even get into divorce law and parental rights, and such insanity.
You're right, but that's a different problem and discussion.
You can't stop defending the people just because your system has a few flaws. Otherwise, murder should indeed be off the books.
We should be spending more time and energy in fixing the system overall.
QUOTE When law enforcement is so slow to adapt to the technological reality of the times that the private citizen's savvy is light-years ahead of them, laws like this give me pause because they have the potential to get abused and cause more problems than they solve.
Do you use anti-virus software? Why waste your money because they're ALWAYS behind the virus curve. It's their nature.
Again, ALL laws have the potential to be abused. Look at the entire traffic code, and tell me the majority isn't just about income for cities/states through tickets.
However, this isn't a business law or regulating anything. This is about making an attempt at protecting people. People are dead because of the things this law is trying to stop. Did the action kill them directly? No, but this was what pushed them over the edge. This HAS ruined careers and families when malicious folks make such photos and videos as public as possible.
And again, nobody is dropping a burden of proof.
QUOTE We've already presented some arguments that have someone feigning victim status to fuck over someone's life.
Good job. Nobody has ever heard of false rape accusations before. However, you're throwing out the baby with the bath water.
QUOTE "No those aren't pornographic images, they're art. Can't you tell? They're all black and white, and I used a photometer to get the light just right. I'm an amateur photographer and filmmaker in my spare time. In fact, you can check her e-mail history and look at a few times when she tried to e-mail these very images off to Playboy to earn some spare cash."
That's a dumb example.
-Why aren't they on his legit photography site?
-Why'd he send them to exgirlfriend.com (don't know if that's real, but there are sites like that)
-Let's check her email history, which her ISP has records of as well...
To sum up, the argument against this law so far is:
1. It could be hard to prove.
2. Women are evil.
3. Our legal system sucks.
Since the exact same argument can be said about rape, if this shouldn't be something we defend people from, why defend them from rape?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 05 2013,14:05 |
|
|
QUOTE Why aren't they on his legit photography site?
Just because he took them doesn't mean he intended to publish them. Writers have fuckloads of books that sit on their shelves, never seeing a publisher's desk.
QUOTE Why'd he send them to exgirlfriend.com (don't know if that's real, but there are sites like that)
I'm assuming this dude's savvy enough to send anonymous e-mails.
QUOTE Let's check her email history, which her ISP has records of as well
Now we get to the fun part. If you can knock on the door of a Tier 1 ISP and get its records, you can start saying you have definitive evidence. Push comes to shove, they're the dudes with the hard evidence you need. And you're just after them because they're in charge of the huge distribution system that is the net. I could even think of some ways to get around that using a public computer terminal with lax security, a USB key, and internet access.
QUOTE That's a dumb example.
I'll extend the example. "Someone got into my house after I accidentally left the door unlocked and stole my papers." You could be way, way, way more evil and print off high-resolution photos, drop them around town with the written message "Scan and post me on facebook", then wait for the results.
Is everyone going to be that devious? No, most offenders will probably fuck up blatantly and get caught.
QUOTE 3. Our legal system sucks.
Which is why what laws get passed need to be carefully considered. A crippled, retarded legal system can only handle certain types of laws without becoming more crippled and retarded. We've got standards for libel and slander, but you've generally got to prove some kind of deception and falsehood is involved.
QUOTE The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and © whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
That's the Miller Test for obscenity. My problem has always been with the word "average" and the third criterion.
QUOTE “People who post or text pictures that are meant to be private as a way to seek revenge are reprehensible,”
True. But that "meant to be private" part is tricky. Who thinks they're meant to be private, the subject or the one who captures the image?
QUOTE Websites specialize in posting these photos and videos, and charge the subjects "unreasonable" fees to take down the images, Cannella said.
On the flip side, that's straight extortion, which is a crime.
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 05 2013,14:10 |
|
|
Interesting parallel. Let's talk recording telephone conversations. I can just as easily fuck you over with words instead of images, and there are already laws on the books about who has to consent to the recording depending upon the locations of all parties involved. In addition, I was under the impression that Italy was the only country where you could secretly video yourself fucking someone and have it be legal for private viewings. I could be wrong, but those statutes handle the cases where someone was deceived. Additionally, this bill failed passage before.
Edited by Malcolm on Jun. 05 2013,14:12
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
GORDON
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 05 2013,14:52 |
|
|
(Leisher @ Jun. 05 2013,15:43)
QUOTE QUOTE You seem to be comparing the frequency of people getting framed for murder with the frequency of a woman doing something vindictive and evil because her feelings got hurt.
And frankly, no, I don't think they should even try in this instance, because your choice is to spend thousands on lawyers to defend yourself, or go to jail. Men already get to enjoy that experience with bullshit rape accusations. You logic is the same as schools and their zero tolerance gun policies. I cannot debate an illogical argument.
It seems to me your example is the exact opposite. I am saying don't prosecute unless there is more proof than just some scorned woman pointing a finger. A school's "zero tolerance" rule is taking any old implication anyone can think of, remove all thought, and say "guilty, sorry, zero tolerance."
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
TPRJones
I saw The Fault in our Stars opening night.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 12384
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 05 2013,14:56 |
|
|
I think the intent of this law is good. But I really do think it will be abused more frequently than it will serve it's intended purpose if it is not carefully constructed, which our legislature seems to no longer be capable of doing.
Bitches be crazy, yo.
I guess ultimately I think it would be better to have something on the books to allow for civil penalties to recover damages from such postings.
Edited by TPRJones on Jun. 05 2013,14:58
--------------
Vidi Perfutui Veni
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
GORDON
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 05 2013,14:58 |
|
|
And hey, maybe someone should be teaching these people in high school the simple concept of, "Don't put in writing or on film anything you don't want made public." Because it all always comes down to that, almost always. The massive amount of amateur porn on the internet tell me that.
It is actually pretty easy to not end up with sex pics on the internet, ladies, barring "hidden camera" situations, which actually could run afoul of existing "wiretap" laws. Dunno.
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 05 2013,15:45 |
|
|
After more thought:
At the beginning of this thread, I was in favour of the law passing. However, the analysis the debate has forced me to do has made me reverse that position.
This is a law that is ultimately aimed at penalizing people who betray intimate info about former intimate acquaintances. They're doing something that's socially unflattering that would make their home/work/school life a living hell. There are real consequences for that, and posting a picture of your ex blowing you is a way to make it happen.
That being said, the same could be said for posting a video of your ex having an attack of diarrhea and shitting all over herself and her bathroom. The same could be said for posting an audio log of your ex saying, "I hate niggers," with her name and a picture of her face on the same page, maybe with an email address and facebook/twitter link thrown in for good measure. There are lots of ways to make someone's social life seem less preferable than death. I just gave three. One embarrassing action was consensual but morally taboo (though hardly uncommon), the second was an involuntary health matter. The third is something we'd all probably rightly ostracize someone for. Hell, this is just covering the things that the internet can be used to disseminate. You can always use the "photos surface accidentally" schtick, too.
The spirit of this law is against all those things, because you're letting private information out into targeted public spaces, where it was not placed with the full consent of all involved parties. The language of the law should reflect that instead of focusing on the internet and sex. Even then, you have to ask yourself if you want to legislate that. Again, not that the fallout isn't real. But this is a law that's specifically there to protect people who mistrust and misjudge other people and get their secrets leaked.
Edited by Malcolm on Jun. 05 2013,15:46
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
