Slashdot Mirror
Navy, Marines Prohibit Sharing Nude Photos In Wake of a Facebook Scandal (fortune.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Fortune: The Navy and Marine Corps issued new regulations that ban members from sharing nude photographs following a scandal involving military personnel sharing intimate pictures of their female colleagues -- some of which were taken without their knowledge -- in a secret Facebook group. The new statute, which was signed Tuesday by Acting Navy Secretary Sean Stackley, went into effect immediately and will be made permanent when the next edition of the Navy's regulations is printed, according to Navy Times. Military courts will handle violations of the new rule. The crackdown comes after a Facebook group was uncovered featuring naked photos of female service members. The group was eventually shut down by Facebook after a request from the Marine Corps. The Center for Investigative Reporting found that some of the photographs posted on the Facebook group may have been taken consensually, but others may not have been.
No reason now to be "in the Navy"
That's really creepy.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Good luck with this policy. At best a few sailors or marines will be busted each year for their stupidity, but the vast majority of incidents will never see any enforcement.
I've never been in the armed services but I was under the impression that one of the most important rules for those in authority was do not give orders that one knows will not be followed. Issuing orders that won't be followed helps destroy one's own authority.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
sharing of "intimate images" (defined) that were taken without consent is what is prohibited:
2. Article 1168 of reference (a) is added to read as follows:
a. 1168. Nonconsensual distribution or broadcasting of an image
(1) The wrongful distribution or broadcasting of an intimate image is
prohibited.
(2) The distribution or broadcasting is wrongful if the person making
the distribution or broadcast does so without legal justification or excuse,
knows or reasonably should know that the depicted person did not consent to
the disclosure, and the intimate image is distributed or broadcast:
(a) With the intent to realize personal gain;
(b) With the intent to humiliate, harm, harass, intimidate,
threaten, or coerce the depicted person; or
(c) With reckless disregard as to whether the depicted person
would be humiliated, harmed, intimidated, threatened, or coerced.
Pics or it didn't happen.
good luck with that.
50 years ago, all of those photos would have been classified as obscene materials and no one would have voluntarily taken them except between some husbands and wives. The single most overlooked practical value that the "old norms" had was simplifying things to the point that someone with a 80 IQ could merrily engage with the opposite sex and know with 99% certainty what was permissible and what wasn't.
The issue also applies to rape as well, outside of clearly forcible rape. Legal fornication acts as static against the signal as far as law enforcement goes. They must now prove purely a state of mind and cannot rely on circumstantial evidence like "normal girls don't ever have one night stands with men they just met."
In many respects, it is not at all obvious that we are freer today than we were when social and legal conventions were simpler and tighter. Now, if anything, the degree of subjectivity is enormously empowering to bureaucrats and law enforcement. Hell, our own former Vice President said that literally all drunken sex involves a female rape victim. That means if you are married, and your wife happily has drunken sex with you, you are open to being accused of rape between the legal acceptance of marital rape and various other statutes like the ones regulating intoxication (and that the state does not need the "victim's" permission to prosecute).
I'll go pop a soma now. It'll take the edge off of our brave new world.
This isn't a new problem for female military personnel, or schoolgirls; what's new is the "on Facebook" method of distribution. What's disappointing is the lack of effort towards an entitlement of privacy, the lack of punishment for those who abuse the privacy and trust of others, the assumption of policy-makers that they've fixed the problem. The rules have changed, but the attitude hasn't; this will happen again.
wtf
I'm awaiting the Wikileaks for this. Because the sailors work for the citizens and whatever, of course.
The Marines has the lowest average age (25) of all the U.S. armed forces.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/demographics-of-active-duty-u-s-military/
their != they're != there
What if she is in the shower, changing room, bathroom, etc. Can you guarantee that someone won't come in and secretly take pictures?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
So the idea of male / female armed forces was really not that well thought out. I mean do they really think a bunch of late teen/20 somethings will not sharing nude pictures this day and age? They are creating more problems than existed in the first place.
As if American men weren't clearly desperate enough already...
Let me explain something to you fags who never served : Marines are in the Navy.
Nope. USMC and USN are separate military services. Although they both report to the same governmental agency, the Department of the Navy, which is run by the Secretary of the Navy, a civilian. The CG also reports to this department when they are on military missions rather than law enforcement missions.
Did they just have to create a rule to protect Marines? WTF! I don't want my country to be defended by a Marine who feels that he/she needs to be protected.
Marines absolutely require protection, and such protection is a longstanding part of Marine culture. A Marine will be protected by the Marines to their left, to their right and since the advent of Marine Aviation by those Marines above as well.
Secretly taking and posting nude photos is an absolute breach of one's responsibility as a Marine, some Marines are "shitbags", every organization has them.
The kid at the photo developing booth was handing the duplication and distribution for you.
They had to make a rule that tells people not to do this?
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
Can I have some sample pictures of that Facebook group, so I can gain a further insight into that delicate problem?
No but we can send you an ICBM if you'd like. Could you send us the GPS coordinates of your dwelling?
No but we can send you an ICBM if you'd like. Could you send us the GPS coordinates of your dwelling?
Sure thing. Just send it to 38.89767579999999, -77.03648269999997. I'm there most of the time.
It takes actually reading the linked article but it appears common sense hasn't entirely flown the coup. The regulation only deals with explicit/nude photos where there was a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. Now, I'm unclear why you'd need a specific regulation guarding against someone invading your privacy as it would seem to me that doing something like sneaking in to the shower room & snapping photos would already be against the regulations but at least its not ALL 'nude photos'. Also if someone gets sent a nude photo how are they supposed to know if the person in it had a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. Now that's not to say we should be stupid, a photo of a group of women in a shower likely raises the question 'did they all consent' so you probably don't want to pass that along but there's no real way for a recipient to know that the subject of a photo has 'consented' to the photo so the rule still seems a bit problematic. All-in-all though it doesn't seem as much the 'sledgehammer' that the summary makes it appear by leaving out the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' part. So I give the summary 2 Pinnochios...
GPS coordinates? You must be worried of going to jail or being sued... Or both...