Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Canada Crime Privacy Security The Internet

An Image Site Is Victimizing Countless Women and Little Can Be Done ( 273

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

An Image Site Is Victimizing Countless Women and Little Can Be Done

Comments Filter:
  • Don't pose nude (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @02:46PM (#54977165)
    does that help?
    • Re:Don't pose nude (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <> on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @03:36PM (#54977717) Homepage Journal

      Not really... This is just the latest problem. Paparrazi taking photos of celebrities on their private property through a zoom lens has been happening since zoom lenses were invented. It's getting worse with the availability of cheap drones.

      We need to decide if we want private spaces and if privacy is to be enforced by high walls and anti-aircraft guns, or some other means.

      • Re:Don't pose nude (Score:5, Interesting)

        by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @04:23PM (#54978191)
        The problem is that no matter how good of a defense you have, someone will find a way through it. Eventually satellites will become cheap enough and cameras good enough to capture candid shots from space. High walls and personal anti-aircraft guns already sounds like some kind of crazed libertarian fantasy land, and I can't imagine anti-satellite missiles being added to the mix makes it any more reasonable.

        Besides, once the information is out there there's no putting the genie back in the bottle. Even assuming there were, the kind of technology that could theoretically allow you to do just that would give authoritarian governments the kind of control over information that not even Orwell could have imagined. That's far more terrifying then the rest of the world being able to see me naked.

        I think it would be far better for humanity to get over their puritanical penchants (which in some cases they're just pretending to have so they can feel morally superior) and accept that people like to fuck. People on nude beaches don't seem to give much care to the other naked people around them, and for what it's worth I think it would do a lot of good for people to see that most people don't look like air-brushed models which has led to a lot of people having issues with body image.
        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          This story of thing is usually discouraged by punishing people who take such photos, and people who publish them. Banning the material also removes much of the incentive to do it because monetising it becomes much harder.

          As you say, it's not perfect and won't completely stop it, but it would definitely improve privacy for most people.

      • It's getting worse with the availability of cheap drones.

        Just had a look at the site, not a single drone photo. Please pick another article for your anti-drone agenda.

    • Re:Don't pose nude (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @03:38PM (#54977733)

      Many of the photos were taken without permission. Even if permission were given to take a picture, that should not automatically include permission to distribute it. In some cases, the photos were copied by technicians from laptops or phones that were being serviced.

      You may feel that women "deserve" abuse if they are not sufficiently chaste, but you may feel different if it is your GF, sister, or daughter.

      The failure of the law to deal with this issue invites vigilante action. In my neighborhood a young man posted explicit pictures of his ex-girlfriend, and was hospitalized after a severe beating by an unknown assailant. His GF's four older brothers denied involvement.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Luthair ( 847766 )
        Nice straw man - I don't think the AC"s point is that they "deserve" it, rather that its largely avoidable. When I cross the road, regardless of whether I have the right of way I'm watching traffic because I'd rather be whole than exercise my right.
        • Nice straw man - I don't think the AC"s point is that they "deserve" it, rather that its largely avoidable. When I cross the road, regardless of whether I have the right of way I'm watching traffic because I'd rather be whole than exercise my right.

          Its avoidable. But do you really want to live in a world where a couple cant take risque photos of each other for whatever kink gets their rocks off. Mate of mine had a wife who lived in the US while he spent a year here in aust juggling visa requiements. So she

          • But do you really want to live in a world where a couple cant take risque photos of each other for whatever kink gets their rocks off.

            Do you want to live in a world where elves aren't real? Sometimes it's not a matter of what we WANT, but of reality.

            The reality is that if you give a picture to someone, they may share it. Short of some extreme DRM (and let's face it - we know that DRM doesn't work), that's simply not something that you can prevent.

            There are a million things that you SHOULD be able to do: leaving your keys in your unlocked car. Letting your kids walk home alone from school. Leaving cash unattended on you desk. Walking

            • You are not comparing apples with oranges but potatoes.
              Anyway your rant simply shows that you are not interesting in solving the problem, but are willing to accept it and want others to deal with it, too.
              Luckily all the problems you imply, like walking around at 3am or let the kids walk home from school, don't exist in the world I live in.
              Being able to say it was wrong after the damage occurs doesn't reverse it
              No one is talking about reversing it. Taking the photos down and punishing the culprit is enough.

        • That's exactly the true argument people are having, they just don't realize it.

          Advocates that believe your "rights" == 100% iron clad safety and protection despite your own mistakes.
          Advocates that believe you should exercise common sense and be proactive despite your "rights" .

          • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

            That's exactly the true argument people are having, they just don't realize it.

            Bullcrap. The argument is whether or not posting explicit photos without permission should be illegal. Whether it is "avoidable" or not is irrelevant. We don't refuse to prosecute theft or rape because the victim could have "avoided it".

            • I'm not against making revenge porn illegal, but barring investigating and shutting down websites with enough accusations and proof you're still not going to shut them all down, and you're still not going to stop someone from sharing it with friends and them sharing it with others...not to mention getting hacked, stolen, or another person with access from stealing them.

              I mean what you're really talking about is enforcing distribution laws similar to software products (remember, this isn't an image of an ill

              • you're still not going to shut them all down

                So? What is your point? This is also true of EVERY CRIME IMAGINABLE. We are never going to catch and convict 100% of offenders for anything. Yet only for revenge porn are people arguing that this is reason to do nothing.

                You would need to get every digital camera to issue a digital key ...

                Absolute nonsense. Did you read TFA? In every single instance the VICTIM identified the photo. Law enforcement does not need to go out and monitor every camera. They can just deal with complaints. Do you think that the police catch pickpockets by putting GPS tracking devices in every

      • Well, I deny involvement, too!
        And I feel so much grief for the poor SOD.
        And I'm lucky/happy he did not post my GFs pictures, too

  • No Links? (Score:5, Funny)

    by sycodon ( 149926 ) on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @02:48PM (#54977183)

    WTF dude?

  • 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.
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      So called revenge-porn or posting stolen nude images is illegal in many countries. Not sure about Canada but the people doing it could be breaking the law... The problem is, with an anonymous site based in another country, how do the police stop it?

      If it is illegal there then I imagine a few people will get arrested. The police will go to the people who the victims tell them have those images on their phones. Might get to test Canada's laws on forced revealing of encryption keys.

      The only people who can real

    • Re:Thanks Vice... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by thewolfkin ( 2790519 ) on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @03:52PM (#54977893) Homepage Journal

      a dark corner of the web nobody would have cared about.

      a dark corner of the web YOU didn't care about because you weren't on it. The women who found themselves on it probably cared.. hence this article.

      • 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

  • How is this news? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by icedcool ( 446975 ) on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @02:55PM (#54977293)
    This is an opinion piece, about outrage and victimization. How is this tech?
    Why do we have this on slashdot news?
    • To have outrage over the outrage.

      Outrage generates clicks.

    • How is this tech?

      Much of the discussion about tech is about the benefits it enables or the unintended consequences. This is the latter.

    • How is this tech?

      The inability for a government to control a website in a world where the record industry will happily get something shutdown for sharing a 31 second soundbite is indeed quite relevant tech news.

  • now you're back to screaming "victimizing women!". Make up your fucking minds already.

  • 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?
    • I thought the article was going to be a call to end all anonymity on the internet... or maybe advocate a "great firewall" of Canada.. or at the very least a call to ban all Russian sites.

      Nope, just standard pointless winging. I suppose it does fall into Vice's "all white men are evil" narrative.

  • by brennz ( 715237 )
    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.
  • by FeelGood314 ( 2516288 ) on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @04:48PM (#54978397)
    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.
    • It is implied that they won't be shared

      Implied means jack shit when things get ugly. All that remains is leverage. It is implied that you won't use those pictures to get revenge against her. It's also implied that she won't report you to police for having a non-existent child porn collection (happened to a friend of mine). It is implied that pictures of her with her face glazed won't be sent to her parents (happened to a friend of mine). It is implied that there won't be a fake rape accusation just because someone was cheating on someone (happen

  • 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.
    • I agree. The uploader is completely without liability, I think (IANAL), but the site probably should be.

    • What fascinating to me is porn mags/nudes mags must get models permission to publish but a web site doesn't need any.

      Do porn mags really need the permission of the subject to publish?

      My guess is that in actuality the mag needs the permission of the copyright holder to publish.

      • this is what i found [] 4. What About Record-Keeping Requirements? Current Federal law requires that individuals and companies involved in the production of pornography, to maintain certain records on performers including their legal name, date of birth and any other name they have gone by. However, according to the EFF, the Department of Justice has expanded the definition of “producer” to also include “secondary producers”, a list that includes peo
  • by FeelGood314 ( 2516288 ) on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @05:20PM (#54978687)
    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.
  • "Victimization" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @07:05PM (#54979579) Journal


    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.

  • by Chris Katko ( 2923353 ) on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @10:10PM (#54980581)

    But if it's man, like Hulk Hogan's sex tape, it's "journalism." And Slashdot curators don't give two shits.

"Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." -- Mark Twain