Victims Push Laws to End Online Revenge Porn Posts

[Jacob]

Agreed. My only concern is about how such a law could be used in ways not intended.

And how do you prove that someone never gave consent for the images to be publicly available?

It'd probably be the reverse - if someone objects to you sharing the picture you better be able to show they gave you consent.

There are potential technological solutions - if a picture is shared on Facebook there could be a "this picture has you in it, do you consent to it being shared" toggle or something; this could possibly be built into image formats in an interconnected world.

You could ask them; you could even go with something as simple as an email directed at them.

I'm sure you can construct a large class photos where consent is irrelevant or implied - you're part of the bridal party? Or in the crowd at a sports event? - Implied consent.

Similarly, if there's nothing prurient or otherwise objectionable about the photo then perhaps you should get consent but any kind of damage is so low that you don't have to worry; or maybe that class of pictures are completely exempted.

Yes, it will take a little bit to define it properly (and you shouldn't rely on me to do it), and there'll be fuzzy bits along the edges anywhere a line is drawn - but a standard of "don't share pictures of a sexual or intimate nature" and "someone sharing a picture with you does not imply permission to distribute it further" seems like a pretty good place to start.

[The Brain]

Only lawyers and lawyer-enablers want human interaction to be completely subordinate to retarded legal stuff.

[crazy canuck]

Only lawyers and lawyer-enablers want human interaction to be completely subordinate to retarded legal stuff.

Not to mention the laws regarding human animal interaction 

[Jacob]

Luckily there are few laws against people posting pointless things on the internet 

[Syt]

I would consider that a lapse in judgment.  I certainly hope you & Max are together forever, and I have no reason to think Max would do anything bad with said pictures, but this is an area in which caution is certainly called for.  Even if Max never intentionally shared the pics, no data is ever 100% secure.

And I'm pretty certain an independent woman such as yourself would have enough sense not to fall for the "you'll do it if you love me" line.

There are so many variations on that line.

"I'll be away from you, and I need to see you while I'm gone. I love you."

"You know what I'd really love for my birthday? I've love to have some nudes of you. Would you?"

"I love how much we trust one another. Our relationship is so solid. Oh, you know what I was thinking? I'd absolutely love to have some pics of you. No, not like that. Here, take your shirt off."

I wouldn't do it anymore than I would get a person's name tattooed on my butt. But I'm an old, embittered divorce'. Not everyone else is.

Not just photos; in today's world a recorded "show and tell" session via webcam might go online just as easily.

[Admiral Yi]

Only lawyers and lawyer-enablers want human interaction to be completely subordinate to retarded legal stuff.

Agreed.  The penalty for betraying trust is not being trusted.

If we criminalize promises not to post nudie pics, then by the same logic we should criminalize secrets told to others.

[crazy canuck]

If we criminalize promises not to post nudie pics, then by the same logic we should criminalize secrets told to others.

We do hold people who break confidences liable for their acts.  This is new to you?

[Valmy]

I would consider that a lapse in judgment.  I certainly hope you & Max are together forever, and I have no reason to think Max would do anything bad with said pictures, but this is an area in which caution is certainly called for.  Even if Max never intentionally shared the pics, no data is ever 100% secure.

It is just so absurd that naked pictures of people are so dangerous.

[Admiral Yi]

We do hold people who break confidences liable for their acts.  This is new to you?

Only in specific cases.  NDAs, attorney-client, etc.

[Valmy]

We do hold people who break confidences liable for their acts.  This is new to you?

Only in specific cases.  NDAs, attorney-client, etc.

There is an idea.  Only give out dirty pictures if your SO signs a NDA.

[CountDeMoney]

I'm so old school I have some Polaroids of ex-girlfriends. They reside in my safe.

packing yesterday, I found 4 Polaroids myself.  Good times.

[derspiess]

I would consider that a lapse in judgment.  I certainly hope you & Max are together forever, and I have no reason to think Max would do anything bad with said pictures, but this is an area in which caution is certainly called for.  Even if Max never intentionally shared the pics, no data is ever 100% secure.

It is just so absurd that naked pictures of people are so dangerous.

Not really, hippie.

Yeah, I know-- nation of prudes, yada yada yada.

[merithyn]

It is just so absurd that naked pictures of people are so dangerous.

Naked pictures of me when I was 22 != naked pictures of me at 43.

There are plenty of drawings of me from when I was in college. I was a model for a number of art classes. Some of the students were friends of mine, and I know that they kept a few.

Would I want pics of me all over online now, where my kids and my kids' friends can find them? Not so much.

[Valmy]

Not really, hippie.

Yeah, I know-- nation of prudes, yada yada yada.

I think it is perfectly possible to be a prude and not flip out at every little insignificant thing like an idiot.  I mean that is brainless tabloid reading type of stuff.

I mean who the fuck cares?  That is none of my business.

[crazy canuck]

We do hold people who break confidences liable for their acts.  This is new to you?

Only in specific cases.  NDAs, attorney-client, etc.

No, it is wider than that.  Fidiciary duties; obligations that all employees have not to disclose the trade secrets of their employers (NDA or not); and a new area of tort law which is loosely termed breach of privacy.  Ten years ago lawyers would have told you with some confidence that no such tort existed and they would be able to point to a number of superior court rules supporting that conclusion.  But recently the Courts have had a second look at this concept and have, in some instances, endorsed it.