Slashdot Mirror
An Image Site Is Victimizing Countless Women and Little Can Be Done (vice.com)
Allison Tierney, reporting for Vice: An international anonymous photo-sharing site where people post explicit photos without consent is playing host to the victimization of countless women. In the Canadian section of Anon-IB alone, there are currently over a hundred threads -- often organized by region, city, or calling out for nudes of a specific woman to be posted publicly. "Hamilton hoes," "Nanaimo Thread!," and "Markham wins" are some titles of Canadian threads. (Language used on the site equates the word "win" with sexually explicit photos of women.) Many major Canadian cities are represented on the site, and some threads even focus on women from specific schools. While it's a crime to share an "intimate image" of a person without their consent in Canada, sites that host this kind of activity don't necessarily fall under this. "[In terms of organizing content], is it criminal? No. Is it illegal? No," Toronto-based lawyer Jordan Donich, of Donich Law, told VICE. "It's a newer version of an older problem -- sites like these have been around for a long time." Anon-IB is not a new site; its current domain was registered to a "private person" in 2015 and ends in an ".ru." However, the site was initially up several years before 2015, going offline briefly in 2014.
does that help?
WTF dude?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
now I know where to source free porn !
That being said, this is a problem with the batshit crazy SJW leftist media: they are giving international audience to a dark corner of the web nobody would have cared about. Same goes in the US when the KKK get national airtime, or when in Europe the Government goes after negationist from same hick universities.
and start going after the posters. These are photos of women. In most cases, I'm pretty sure the women involved know with absolute certainty when the picture was taken, and who took the picture, or if they took the picture themselves, who they shared it with. Go after these people.
This is an opinion piece, about outrage and victimization. How is this tech?
Why do we have this on slashdot news?
Most people aren't thought about after they're gone. "I wonder where Rob got the plutonium" is better than most get.
Even if people didn't take the photos themselves, there have always been people trying to point cameras at beaches or up skirts and then masturbate over them. I guess you can argue "don't wear those clothes if you don't want to risk this happening" but most people prefer a society where women don't have to wear burkas just to avoid becoming part of some internet porn site.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
start going after the posters
For what?
In most cases, I'm pretty sure the women involved know with absolute certainty when the picture was taken, and who took the picture
Great, so we can probably establish who owns the picture's copyright. What are you "going after" them for again?
or if they took the picture themselves, who they shared it with. Go after these people.
OK, finally we have a possibly legit reason. Are you seriously suggesting that we download photos from the site, track down the women involved, and convince them to file DMCA takedowns?
Much of the internet and its technologies were built to share pornography. Sites like this give us all a chance to abuse women and not let the elite pornography producers be the only ones in the game. Yeah, technology and social networks!
now you're back to screaming "victimizing women!". Make up your fucking minds already.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
People are doing something we don't agree with!
And where they're doing it there's nothing wrong with it, so we're legally powerless!
So let's whine about it really loudly!!!
Is this really a good way to react to a thing you don't like on the internet?
There are certainly issues where I would side with you. Anything in fact where the victim did not intentionally exposed themselves to being photographed in a compromising way. The cretins who post up-skirt photos, I believe should be addressed.
People posing nude or taking nude selfies to send to people does not fall into the same category. Nobody should have the expectation that the recipient/holder of the photos is, or will remain, altruistic and friendly. While nobody gets married intending to get a divorce (or so statically small it's the same thing), we all know and understand that there is a risk of divorce after marriage. Quite a high risk for that matter.
I know this is all common sense and foreign to people, but relationships are emotional by definition. Good or bad, it's still emotional.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
No Evilmenz has ever been exposed in one of these sites. Not one menz, ever. Evil Menz have no right to complain about this, only wimminz can be victimz of this horrible crime.
One of the key ways to avoid having an affair is to not start down that path. By the time you're naked in bed with someone it's hard to put the brakes on. But, if people pretend they're not attracted to each other, then they are much less likely to end up naked in bed together, in the first place. So I've always assumed that everyone knew that everyone else was sexually attracted to each other - going home and masturbating over the memories of the sexy things that co-workers and waitresses and friends and perhaps even in-laws had done - but maintaining plausible deniability - allowing everyone to pretend it wasn't happening.
In the bigger picture, though, in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, the problem of eating meat was solved by breeding cows that wanted to be eaten. What we need here is to breed people who like to have their pictures posted online so that other people can masturbate over them. But it might be more efficient just to develop really high quality sex robots. Imagine if the USA had taken the money it spent on the Iraq war and instead used it for sex robot research and developments. Then people wouldn't have masturbate to online images - they could have full-on sex whenever they wanted.
Yes, sex robots are the ultimate solution.
An hour from Nanaimo Is probably one of the Largest legal nude beaches in the world. Common guys get away from your computer screen and get out in the sun... and hey... you may even get to talk to the ladies, and hit it off :)
[($)]
Everything bad on the internet ends in ".ru", right?
There was a time when the smell of marijuana made me feel better about society. Not because of the drug itself, but that smell meant there were people out there who realized some of our rules are silly / outdated and refuse to follow them. Websites with the .ru domain are like that. They may be good bad or even illegal, but they probably have exactly what someone wanted to put up without respect to weather it's approved of in Germany or Ireland or America. In this context, "bad" is an awfully subjective concept.
Probably because the number of posts has been dwindling lately, so someone thought they'd drive more traffic to the site and hopefully get some more uploaders.
Although I agree taking/publishing intimate photos of people without there consent is wrong and people should not do it. Also visiting those site who are clearly trying hurt people is wrong.
It seems that impact it has on people is overblown. People can masturbate to you by remembering you when if they see you on the street, there is nothing you can do about it, it is simply best not to think about it.
If it is an up-skirt photo, are you even recognizable? It is a real question I don't look at those sort of things, I see no attraction is seeing a bit of badly lit material.
If someone is looking at you on these sites, you have a choice be offended, think your life is ruined because of it, be depressed. Or think all these poor saps want me and can't have me that is how sexy and awesome I am. And to the jerk ex that posted them, see how many people want me, enjoy your photos, and the rest of your sad and lonely life.
The fact is there is just so much porn out there that the likelihood is most people will not even remember you, so your life will not effected much if you don't let it. As for any future partner if they are worth it they will be loving and understanding, if not you have avoided another jerk.
I think the real problem here is that people, are taught to be embarrassed of there own bodies. If we weren't revenge porn would loose all its power and just go away.
Saying "Don't pose nude" doesn't blame the victims. Just stops people from becoming one.
Your way of life is basically like luring people into entrapment and secretly admiring the shame brought on them while you tell people not to think ill of the victims.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Also visiting those site who are clearly trying hurt people is wrong.
Only when you're done jerking off, part of post-coital dysphoria I guess...
It is fun, it's intimate and the girls were beautiful. I also delete the pictures when I'm not dating them anymore. They gave me permission to take the pictures and to look at them. They are private pictures between a boyfriend and girlfriend. It is implied that they won't be shared and that I won't look at them after we break up. Also most of the pictures are taken with my camera in my house or around my property. If they leak out it is pretty obvious that either I leaked them (or maybe the girlfriend), so I would be taking a huge risk in being sued if I do keep them and I lost them.
I do think it would help if the police did go after men who post pictures like this with malicious intent. I also think society should really grow up and stop treating sex and sexual acts like they are dirty and immoral. Hint, almost everyone is naked twice a day, most people masturbate and most people enjoy having sex for reasons other than having babies.
Not locking your doors at all is a FAR FUCKING CRY from not having a 13th lock on the door. You commit the fallacy of excluded middle.
Some measures are reasonable. There will always be some gray area but that doesn't excuse anyone from failing to take REASONABLE precautions to prevent something bad from happening.
When people do stupid things, they should feel ashamed of them, so that they learn from them, and do smart things in the future.
And this in no way mitigates the guilt of a perpetrator. The common reaction of "their lack of preparation doesn't justify the crime" is a flawed counter-argument, because it doesn't counter the argument being made. It counters a different argument (that the perp should be let go) which is NOT BEING MADE.
What fascinating to me is porn mags/nudes mags must get models permission to publish but a web site doesn't need any. Here a site that im guessing makes it money by adverting so why are they excluded from requiring permissions. they ARE making money from publishing peoples images Why is the internet held to different standards to the hard copy industry? Good questions i think.
Jack of all trades,master of none
There are a lot of questionable posts on it but the volume of pictures of varying quality buries any pictures that a woman might not want seen. If your picture is up there, unless someone tells your friends exactly where to look, no one will find it, and if they do tell exactly where to look then they could have just as easily sent the picture.
Perhaps you should investigate the difference between Criminal and Civil actions. Lets see if we can reason through this, using money since you hinted at it.
A better analogy (IMHO) would be that you and your roommate have a jug and each of you drops money into the jug. One day you come home from work and see a note that your roommate hates you, and moved out while you were at work. You happen to notice that the jug you both put money into is no longer full, and is at roughly half.
Did your roommate commit a crime? If you related this factually: A police officer and DA would tell you no, that you could not prosecute and that there was no criminal action. You could however take them to civil court if you feel that they took more than their fair share and try to get the difference in what you feel was rightly yours versus theirs.
You voluntarily shared your money in the same pile as theirs. The outcome you got was probably not what you wanted, but without your actions the outcome would not have been possible.
Now if a person feels wronged and wants to sue the person uploading the pictures, I'm fine with that. Making a voluntary exchange criminal because someone changes their mind after the fact, not fine. We are all accountable for our actions and any repercussions that arise from our actions. The better our choices the safer and better the outcomes tend to be.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
post-coital dysphoria I guess...
People who really suffer from that should get medical/mental help.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
From a moral point of view, is there really much difference between saying "wear skirts long enough to prevent up-skirt photography" and "cover every part of your body"?
In both cases it seems overly restrictive, insulting to men and like victim blaming.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The shorter the skirt, the more convenient it probably is to take an up-skirt photo. Thus: how short is "long enough" to make up-skirt photos impractical (ankle, calf, knee)?
There was a time when mothers taught girls to sit with their knees together -- even in the 1980s, Paris Hilton's twat shot would have been unthinkable, since women knew the bare minimum on correct behavior.
You lock your apartment/house and car doors, even though you know it's not guaranteed protection against theft. Similarly, knee-length skirts aren't an unreasonable burden to protect one's self against potential up-skirt photos.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Really?
We need to decide as a society if women are delicate snowflakes that constantly need protection and whose inviolability is paramount. In this world, we
Or, women are just PEOPLE. A picture of them is no different than say a picture of a man... you know, also a PERSON. *Nobody* in their right might would assert that a clothed picture of a man would ever be "victimizing" them. So why are women particularly vulnerable?
Even an upskirt shot with undies is simply showing a piece of her body with clothing. How is that intrinsically different than their foot with a sock, or a shoulder with a sleeve over it?
Unless, of course, you're asserting that the vagina and breast are somehow magically special and require special treatment?
You cannot insist simultaneously that women are "special" when you want them to be, but demand that they be treated "like everyone else" when you want them to be.
Well, you CAN demand it - but you're simply a hypocrite.
PS thanks for the site suggestion. Will be reviewing and doing disgusting things while doing it, because "victims" turn me on. If they were just people that didn't give a shit? Not so much.
-Styopa
I skimmed the site. It's mostly selfies.
If you don't want nude shots of you on the internet, don't send out nude shots to people you don't know and can't trust.
Oh wait, everyone today is a fucking moron and believes that they should be protected from self-interested actions by others while pursuing their own self-interested actions with impunity. Forgot about that. So all the attention whores get to send out their pics to get their attention fix, and rest assured that they got destroyed as they wished by the flaming assholes that are paying attention to them.
Everyone is a shitbird, including your parents some of the time. News at 11. So I don't feel even a little sorry for anyone on that site.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
maintaining plausible deniability - allowing everyone to pretend it wasn't happening.
+1
It was about 30 years ago when I realized that a little hypocrisy is needed for society to function well.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Even if people didn't take the photos themselves, there have always been people trying to point cameras at beaches or up skirts and then masturbate over them.
I do consider myself a bit of a technophile but I would never masturbate over a camera.
It's sad, but true, that a huge percentage of the population would be criminals of opportunity if we made it easier. However, there are a lot of actual criminals that look specifically for those opportunities. So yes, locks keep out a lot of criminals who only commit "easy" crimes, which is actually most of them.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
But if it's man, like Hulk Hogan's sex tape, it's "journalism." And Slashdot curators don't give two shits.
Similarly, knee-length skirts aren't an unreasonable burden to protect one's self against potential up-skirt photos.
And this, kids, is why we can't have nice things.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
reposted daily for years
If they were competent police, this is definitely harassment and intent would be easy enough to prove.
She trusted someone she shouldn't have, and got a lot of heartache for it. She realizes that. That doesn't mean she deserves everything her asshole ex does.
Now, suppose you told an off-color joke at the wrong moment at work, and the office prude heard it (personally, the funniest off-color joke I ever heard at work was told by a woman) and hauled you up on sexual harassment charges. You're fired, blacklisted, your girlfriend leaves you, etc. You deserve this, don't you, because you did something you shouldn't have. You need to be held accountable for your actions.
Same reasoning.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It's actually perfectly natural, so fuck you. I'm a male, not a defective female.
It might be common but it is not normal.
And you mix a few things up about defective, it is the males who have a defect genome, hence they are males and not female. So besides the obvious brain defect you seem to have (or why are you so insulting?) you definitly have an Y chromosome were females have an X.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.