The main argument against anonymity is that it would reduce trolling, hate, etc. Too bad that it didn't work out that way. Put someone behind a keyboard and the bad behaviour comes out, real name policies be damned.
As soon as she distributed it, the die was cast. Nobody else forced her to make the videos. She didn't make them with the intent of keeping them private. And she certainly distributed them to people who didn't even know they existed, or had asked to see them.
It was strictly for revenge. Hence, revenge porn.
Emotional harm is real, otherwise we wouldn't have laws against harassment, and her actions were harassment. It would be no different than you sleeping with someone over an extended period, then there's a fight and she decides to take revenge on you by distributing graphic pictures of herself before and after the sex change to your whole family. There are two ways to handle such a situation - be humiliated, or foil their intention by distributing it further since they're already been "published" within the legal definition.
As for the "right to be forgotten", the judge ordered that SHE pay $20,000 (or euros, don't remember, from another article). In other words, she was not blameless, and she should be responsible for the costs of exercising the "right to be forgotten".
As soon as you make something public, which she did when she sent the videos to his friends and family, it's no longer private between her and her ex. She did it for the express purpose of humiliating him - she wouldn't have been able to achieve her goal if she hadn't made it public to others who were not in the video, especially since it was unsolicited. By your own definition of revenge porn, she actually is guilty.
The friends and family were not involved until she sent them the video. They were not in the videos, they didn't ask to see them, they had no prior knowledge of their existence, they had no involvement with the videos whatsoever. Since they had no prior involvement, she certainly made the videos public when she sent them.
She got her Darwin Award fair and square, same as anyone else who sets out to harm someone else and ends up suffering the consequences is getting their just desserts. Everything was solely her choice - the making of the videos, distributing them, and her suicide. Who else is to blame? Nobody.
If you share something with someone in confidence and they then share it with your whole family and friends, they have made your secret public.
They use Facebook as an example. If we can get all Facebook users to voluntarily wall themselves off from the rest of the Internet, it's a win-win situation. They're happy, we're happy.
It's not due to limited storage. Most downloaded apps either get deleted or are never used after the first blush of "hey, new app!" As far as space goes, remove Facebook and you'll have room for lots of apps.
The half-life of a new app on a smartphone is not great. People will download a few, and usually end up deleting them all. Aside from the default install apps, the only ones you'll find on mine are a dozen apps for news, bus schedule, epub reader, bank, kijiji, messaging, and an slashdot reader. No games survived more than an hour.
She made multiple videos, each with her having sex with one or more men, in a misguided and ultimately fatal attempt to humiliate him. She sent those videos, unsolicited, to his friends and family. The intent makes it revenge porn. She was trying to send the message "see how many men want me", and instead sent the message "I'm a stupid slut." She was the one who lost all right to privacy when she willfully sent them unsolicited to his friends and family.
Anyone who doesn't live their whole life in the drama bubbles on Facebook or twitter could have told her the risks, but she probably wouldn't have listened anyway. The desire for revenge clouded her judgment.
That so many posters automatically assume that the guy was the perp shows just how much sexism is alive and well.
It would equally be revenge porn if, in an attempt to humiliate a neighbor, they had intentionally distributed porn featuring the neighbor's kids to all the members of the neighbor's church. "Look at how my neighbor raised their kids." The intended target doesn't have to be in the video. Humiliation by association. It's real.
I think YOU are mistaken. I never said that she made the videos with her ex - she made them with other men (including more than one at a time) after the split, with the express purpose of humiliating him in front of his friends and family to whom she distributed the videos.
When she distributed it to people who never even asked to see it, she lost all right to claim any sort of "privacy." There was no prior "understanding" between her and any of the recipients that "hey, this is private, just fyi, so keep it confidential." She was attempting emotional blackmail, and the motivation makes it revenge porn.
If someone tried to humiliate me, I'd make it very public (actually, already happened a few times) as a way of holding them accountable for their actions. They would have NO right of privacy in what they had said. Anything less gives power to the perp, and she was the perp in this case.
She was the one who tried to do the whole public shaming thing, but, like pissing in the wind, when the wind doesn't blow the right way, you're going to get splash-back.
Once you make something public, there's no take-back. That's the way the world works, and has worked long before the Internet. Gossip is part of human nature.
Doesn't matter. The porn video was made and distributed to exact revenge on him. That's the essence of revenge porn. Intent - it counts, especially in determining guilt or innocence in criminal acts such as this one.
By choice, so I've experienced the double standard from both sides, and it's just stupid. We complain that women aren't treated equally (and we aren't) and then want to be treated differently when it's convenient? That's just reinforcing the "inherent inferiority of women" mentality that studies of trans-people, as the best experimental subjects for exposing such gender biases, shows definitely exists. Here's an example in the other direction.
Asking for equality while also wanting to be shielded from the consequences of our decisions "because woman" is hypocritical, and men are just as guilty of reinforcing this attitude, as we see in the comments. Conditional equality is no equality.
Read it again. This was not a private message. She made and publicly disseminated the video in an attempt to humiliate him this family and friends. That's called revenge porn. There is no excuse for that sort of behavior, doesn't matter that in this case the perp was a woman. Ultimately, she got what she wanted to inflict on him, and couldn't handle it. Hubris.
Totally disagree. She made the video expressly to humiliate her ex-boyfriend. She distributed it to his family and friends. That's called revenge porn.
Nobody gets a free pass on this regardless of their sex. Anything else sends the message that women need to be protected from the consequences of their own decisions because they are women. Your comment is both sexist and misogynistic - if it was the ex making sex videos of himself and sending it to her family and friends in an attempt to humiliate her, and she spread it around, we'd be laughing at the dumbass and celebrating his Darwin award. Let's not have double standards based solely on sex - it's demeaning to women.
I figured cat would, you know, evolve after a few million years. With that ego, would he really want to be know as just plain old "cat"? As for Kryten, my bad, Never bothered to watch the credits.
Don't be such a smeg head. It was the first I heard of the remake, and I figured if I didn't know about it, others probably didn't either. Also, do you call the move "XXX" "Triple X" or "30"? I doubt you pronounced season 8 as "season vee-eye-eye-eye".
The walkman was from 1979. That's pretty much the Apple 1 era (Apple was incorporated in 1977). There were tons of other portable music players before Apple. Even Soubdblaster (Creative Labs) had an mp3 player (NOMAD) in 1999.
Tax expenditures also include subsidies and rebates. The rest of the population pays for them, both in higher taxation rates and needing to take out loans, which the population also pays for. Also, a subsidy is NOT just "a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive". Apple was able to avoid paying tax on most of their profits - and rather than ending, the amount of the subsidy increased massively over time as the tax rate was reduced to pretty much zero. (0.005%). No nation can "undercut Ireland by setting a 10% corporate rate."
Also, you are under the impression that this is a court case - it's not. So, no laughing it out of court yet since it's not there.
Slashdot Mirror
The main argument against anonymity is that it would reduce trolling, hate, etc. Too bad that it didn't work out that way. Put someone behind a keyboard and the bad behaviour comes out, real name policies be damned.
As soon as she distributed it, the die was cast. Nobody else forced her to make the videos. She didn't make them with the intent of keeping them private. And she certainly distributed them to people who didn't even know they existed, or had asked to see them.
It was strictly for revenge. Hence, revenge porn.
Emotional harm is real, otherwise we wouldn't have laws against harassment, and her actions were harassment. It would be no different than you sleeping with someone over an extended period, then there's a fight and she decides to take revenge on you by distributing graphic pictures of herself before and after the sex change to your whole family. There are two ways to handle such a situation - be humiliated, or foil their intention by distributing it further since they're already been "published" within the legal definition.
As for the "right to be forgotten", the judge ordered that SHE pay $20,000 (or euros, don't remember, from another article). In other words, she was not blameless, and she should be responsible for the costs of exercising the "right to be forgotten".
As soon as you make something public, which she did when she sent the videos to his friends and family, it's no longer private between her and her ex. She did it for the express purpose of humiliating him - she wouldn't have been able to achieve her goal if she hadn't made it public to others who were not in the video, especially since it was unsolicited. By your own definition of revenge porn, she actually is guilty.
The friends and family were not involved until she sent them the video. They were not in the videos, they didn't ask to see them, they had no prior knowledge of their existence, they had no involvement with the videos whatsoever. Since they had no prior involvement, she certainly made the videos public when she sent them.
She got her Darwin Award fair and square, same as anyone else who sets out to harm someone else and ends up suffering the consequences is getting their just desserts. Everything was solely her choice - the making of the videos, distributing them, and her suicide. Who else is to blame? Nobody.
If you share something with someone in confidence and they then share it with your whole family and friends, they have made your secret public.
Not true. She is free to sue for a declaratory judgment stating she doesn't owe the money.
link
They use Facebook as an example. If we can get all Facebook users to voluntarily wall themselves off from the rest of the Internet, it's a win-win situation. They're happy, we're happy.
It's not due to limited storage. Most downloaded apps either get deleted or are never used after the first blush of "hey, new app!" As far as space goes, remove Facebook and you'll have room for lots of apps.
No. Regular apps and web-based apps both mostly suck.
The half-life of a new app on a smartphone is not great. People will download a few, and usually end up deleting them all. Aside from the default install apps, the only ones you'll find on mine are a dozen apps for news, bus schedule, epub reader, bank, kijiji, messaging, and an slashdot reader. No games survived more than an hour.
She made multiple videos, each with her having sex with one or more men, in a misguided and ultimately fatal attempt to humiliate him. She sent those videos, unsolicited, to his friends and family. The intent makes it revenge porn. She was trying to send the message "see how many men want me", and instead sent the message "I'm a stupid slut." She was the one who lost all right to privacy when she willfully sent them unsolicited to his friends and family.
Anyone who doesn't live their whole life in the drama bubbles on Facebook or twitter could have told her the risks, but she probably wouldn't have listened anyway. The desire for revenge clouded her judgment.
That so many posters automatically assume that the guy was the perp shows just how much sexism is alive and well.
It would equally be revenge porn if, in an attempt to humiliate a neighbor, they had intentionally distributed porn featuring the neighbor's kids to all the members of the neighbor's church. "Look at how my neighbor raised their kids." The intended target doesn't have to be in the video. Humiliation by association. It's real.
I think YOU are mistaken. I never said that she made the videos with her ex - she made them with other men (including more than one at a time) after the split, with the express purpose of humiliating him in front of his friends and family to whom she distributed the videos.
When she distributed it to people who never even asked to see it, she lost all right to claim any sort of "privacy." There was no prior "understanding" between her and any of the recipients that "hey, this is private, just fyi, so keep it confidential." She was attempting emotional blackmail, and the motivation makes it revenge porn.
If someone tried to humiliate me, I'd make it very public (actually, already happened a few times) as a way of holding them accountable for their actions. They would have NO right of privacy in what they had said. Anything less gives power to the perp, and she was the perp in this case.
She was the one who tried to do the whole public shaming thing, but, like pissing in the wind, when the wind doesn't blow the right way, you're going to get splash-back.
Once you make something public, there's no take-back. That's the way the world works, and has worked long before the Internet. Gossip is part of human nature.
Doesn't matter. The porn video was made and distributed to exact revenge on him. That's the essence of revenge porn. Intent - it counts, especially in determining guilt or innocence in criminal acts such as this one.
By choice, so I've experienced the double standard from both sides, and it's just stupid. We complain that women aren't treated equally (and we aren't) and then want to be treated differently when it's convenient? That's just reinforcing the "inherent inferiority of women" mentality that studies of trans-people, as the best experimental subjects for exposing such gender biases, shows definitely exists. Here's an example in the other direction.
Asking for equality while also wanting to be shielded from the consequences of our decisions "because woman" is hypocritical, and men are just as guilty of reinforcing this attitude, as we see in the comments. Conditional equality is no equality.
Read it again. This was not a private message. She made and publicly disseminated the video in an attempt to humiliate him this family and friends. That's called revenge porn. There is no excuse for that sort of behavior, doesn't matter that in this case the perp was a woman. Ultimately, she got what she wanted to inflict on him, and couldn't handle it. Hubris.
Nobody gets a free pass on this regardless of their sex. Anything else sends the message that women need to be protected from the consequences of their own decisions because they are women. Your comment is both sexist and misogynistic - if it was the ex making sex videos of himself and sending it to her family and friends in an attempt to humiliate her, and she spread it around, we'd be laughing at the dumbass and celebrating his Darwin award. Let's not have double standards based solely on sex - it's demeaning to women.
Seriously, this is beyond stupid. She was the one guilty of revenge porn. Why should anyone treat this differently than when the guy does it?
Quite an apt metaphor, because this problem is buried in the phone's DNA (not-so-intelligent design).
Like with Dr. Dre Beats headphones, they'll re-badge them as M. C. Hammer "Can't touch this!" smartphones.
I figured cat would, you know, evolve after a few million years. With that ego, would he really want to be know as just plain old "cat"? As for Kryten, my bad, Never bothered to watch the credits.
The source is dated September 15th, 2016. It was posted here the same day.
Don't be such a smeg head. It was the first I heard of the remake, and I figured if I didn't know about it, others probably didn't either. Also, do you call the move "XXX" "Triple X" or "30"? I doubt you pronounced season 8 as "season vee-eye-eye-eye".
smeg Eg: In referencing Lister's underwear - "Get the smeg hammer."
The walkman was from 1979. That's pretty much the Apple 1 era (Apple was incorporated in 1977). There were tons of other portable music players before Apple. Even Soubdblaster (Creative Labs) had an mp3 player (NOMAD) in 1999.
Tax expenditures also include subsidies and rebates. The rest of the population pays for them, both in higher taxation rates and needing to take out loans, which the population also pays for. Also, a subsidy is NOT just "a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive". Apple was able to avoid paying tax on most of their profits - and rather than ending, the amount of the subsidy increased massively over time as the tax rate was reduced to pretty much zero. (0.005%). No nation can "undercut Ireland by setting a 10% corporate rate."
Also, you are under the impression that this is a court case - it's not. So, no laughing it out of court yet since it's not there.
Shoot - the magic pixie dust must have expired. Now I have to subscribe to read the whole article ... :-( Oh well ...