An Image Site Is Victimizing Countless Women and Little Can Be Done (vice.com) 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.
Don't pose nude (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't pose nude (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
There is a difference between domain-specific terminology and common vernacular. Their use was the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is, the original poster was probably referring to a zoomable telephoto lens anyway. Hate to say it, but a lot of vernacular uses the modifier instead of the main word - and linguistically speaking, it's still correct. Much how you use the term "radio" when what you really mean is a radio receiver. Or calling your mobile phone a "cell," when that's really just the name for the geographic divisions of the network. Or calling your mobile phone a "phone" when you really mean telephone (phone just m
Re:Don't pose nude (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
vs
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".
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: Don't pose nude (Score:2)
Funny, I know plenty of ex military guys - army, navy and air force - including two UK special forces and none them talk like that. Are you sure you've had military training, because if you have your trainers did a pretty terrible job.
Re: (Score:2)
How is showing a video of someone else who cannot consent considered free speech?
And if you say that it is (in the US), provide citation.
Re: (Score:2)
How is showing a video of someone else who cannot consent considered free speech?
It is speech, since it includes audio. I doubt if it would be legal anywhere. But the ACs point is that there should be NO restrictions. So if you think that child rape recordings should be banned, then you agree with me that some things should be censored, and disagree with the AC.
Btw, the revenge porn described in TFA is also distributed without consent, and sometimes recorded without consent. So you seem to think that "consent" is a lot more important than many others here.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure you didn't mean 16 year old, because if you didn't then your rapist is also publishing child pornography.
If free speech is absolute, and limiting communication in any way whatsoever is "batshit crazy" then why should child porn be illegal?
If you agree with existing child porn laws, or ANY restrictions on child porn, then you can't also agree with the AC I was replying to.
Re:Don't pose nude (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't pose nude (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about victim blaming, it's about prevention - you can make yourself NOT be a victim if you're not comfortable with the world seeing you nude by NOT POSING NUDE. That doesn't mean the people that violate your trust aren't guilty (of at least violating your trust, if not something illegal).
Hey, if I leave my car unlocked and someone steals something inside it, the scumbag who stole my stuff is still guilty - but I could have limited my chances of being a victim if I'd have locked my doors. It's an unfortunate side of society that we need to expend resources keeping people from violating our rights, but it is the way it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Timely... I left my truck unlocked last night and it was burgled.
Still filed a police report, don't expect anything to be done about it.
Now as to the topic at hand:
I see a difference between those who pose and have those shots later leaked (by/for any one/reason) and those who really are in the unknowing position of a hidden camera.
The former, yes "don't pose nude" is fair advice, especially seeing as this is a *known* problem (revenge porn sites in general). Yes it smacks of victim blaming, but it also is
Re:Locks. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course people can (and sometimes do) take photos of other people without their consent (e.g. with hidden cameras in the showers at the gym, and similar pervy maneuvering).
As cameras get smaller, cheaper, and less noticeable, this will become easier and easier to get away with. At some point we might end up with something like David Brin's smart dust, where the cameras are literally too small to see with the naked eye.
Of course, well before then we will no doubt have software takes a photograph of a clot
No, that's stupid. (Score:2, Insightful)
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 commo
Re:Don't pose nude (Score:4, Interesting)
As the other response said - there's a reasonable amount of precaution one should take. A lock on your door is reasonable. More than 2 or 3 is probably starting to fall in the unreasonable category. I would never chastise the victim in any event... in an ideal society, people shouldn't have to lock their doors, there should be the expectation that other human beings could somehow find a way to not violate your rights. We shouldn't need passwords, we shouldn't need antivirus software. Unfortunately, people are a#@holes, so it's expected and reasonable that you lock your door, that you password protect your data.
When people post here that they shouldn't have posed nude to begin with, it's exactly as a precautionary statement - I doubt those women read slashdot. It's something we should heed, tell our kids, spread the word.
Re: (Score:3)
How many of those pictures were shared with strangers by the victim? Some women send nude pics to people they trust, and find the trust abused.
Re:Don't pose nude (Score:5, Insightful)
you can do both you realise?
It's like leaving your door unlocked in a rough neighborhood, then getting robbed.
You are still a victim, and the robber still deserves the full punishment of the law. but just because you put yourself in a POTENTIAL situation, doesn't mean that someone exploiting it is without blame.
Fuck that site.
Re: Don't pose nude (Score:3)
No. Breaking refers to the plane, legally speaking. Entering through an unlocked door is still breaking and entering. You broke the plane and made ingress.
Not really (Score:3)
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 d
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody should have the expectation that the recipient/holder of the photos is, or will remain, altruistic and friendly.
Nobody should have the expectation that an unattended wallet won't be stolen. But that doesn't mean that stealing wallets should be legal.
Re: (Score:2)
On the flip side, if there are nude photos of just about everyone (at some point in their life) online then perhaps no one will care and there won't be any appeal in it. Either that or there will just be so much of it that the odds of ever finding someone you know is rapidly diminished. Ev
Re: (Score:2)
don't think anyone is saying that stealing wallets should be legal either and I'd suspect anyone making that argument to be trolling. But at the same time making something illegal doesn't prevent people from doing it.
I posit that the majority of people feel that "finders keepers losers weepers" is a wholly lawful belief and have first hand experience witnessing an entire poker table use this logic while discussing the arrest of a player at a neighboring poker table that found a thick billfold and pocketed it.
Sorry but regardless of how legal or illegal it is, society at large finds "finders keepers" to be acceptable.
Wrong analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Who is blaming victims? (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Blame / fault / culpability for harming you: Whomever harmed you.
Responsibility for your well-being: You.
It's not "victim blaming" to say people should be responsible and prevent these situations.
Imprisoning a murderer or shaming people as "victim blamers" won't make anyone less dead.
Re: (Score:3)
Those who gave photos of themselves to trusted people can be victims. That's like saying that giving out my WiFi password to a guest means that if the guest is caught doing illegal stuff on my connection, I'm not a victim. Or that if I let a friend borrow my car, and it gets totaled, I'm not a victim.
We should be able to trust people without being blamed if they turn out to be assholes.
No Links? (Score:5, Funny)
WTF dude?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Pics or it didn't happen.
No I'm being serious!
Re: (Score:2)
The name of the site is literally in the second sentence of the summary. Do you even Google man?
Re: (Score:3)
Not since they fired Damore.
Re:No Links? (Score:5, Funny)
I know, right? I told my wife the same thing and she still threw a plate at my head.
Thanks Vice... (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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:5, Insightful)
I'm probably crazy, but I think maybe the world would be a better place if the response was, "That girl was an enthusistic partner, shame the guy turned out to be an asshole".
Most of us have sex. Most of us appreciate a willing, enthusiastic partner we feel we can trust. Why do so many look down on the woman with cum on her face instead of the dick that put it there?
Re: (Score:2)
Even if true, revenge porn isn't the answer, it's still a dick move.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[... and yes, it is also acceptable to hit a girl in self-defence, no matter how tiny the girl is. she wanna be a man, she's gonna be treated like one.]
Re: (Score:2)
Girl should get revenge by exposing the guy for the asshole he is, so that he loses his job, status and maybe an existing girlfriend! That would be fitting. What future girlfriend would want to go out with an asshole who'd done that to an ex, no matter what justification he was able to conjure?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no. And it has nothing to do with sex - a big guy beating a small one is still wrong.
I'm not saying you shouldn't defend yourself, but if you want to be a fully civilized human being you use the minimum force required to nullify the threat. In extreme cases that means killing them, but in the typical situation you're probably thinking of, holding them until the cops arrive is the correct choice.
Anything else is just macho bullshit, and you ought to aspire to be better than that.
Re: (Score:3)
Such a behavior is unacceptable, if she fail to control h
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Thanks Vice... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a whole universe between "enjoying sex consensually" and "being the town whore". And yes, I do speak of experience as a polyamorous guy.
Right in other words, there's some arbitrary threshold in your mind of "too much sex". Obviously you're on the right side of it despite claiming to be a polyamorous guy. But if some woman has just a bit too much sex, you bring out the insults, presumably because you can't bear the idea of (a) someone having more sex than you and (b) that person NOT having sex with you.
Sucks to be you, bro!
Re: (Score:2)
I've never been privy to the relevant conversations, but my understanding is the girls are worse slut-shamers than the guys.
That makes more sense!at least, since the girls who want relationships without having to be what would be to them 'overly sexual' would surely resent other girls setting the bar too high. Then again, I get the feeling a lot of young women like to be socially vicious just for practice...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Thanks Vice... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
How is this news? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do we have this on slashdot news?
Re: (Score:3)
To have outrage over the outrage.
Outrage generates clicks.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this tech?
Much of the discussion about tech is about the benefits it enables or the unintended consequences. This is the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:How is this news? (Score:4, Funny)
This is why I'm working on my labia shape hash algorithm. Facial recognition isn't good enough.
Ladies, it's only going to work as well as the database, be sure and submit images of yours. It's the only way to get the notice if someone puts an image of your goodies on the net.
You defended Gawker when they did the same (Score:2)
now you're back to screaming "victimizing women!". Make up your fucking minds already.
News flash! (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
re (Score:2)
I've taken lots of naked pics of women (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Why are they held to diffrent standards? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. The uploader is completely without liability, I think (IANAL), but the site probably should be.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The site is crap (Score:3)
"Victimization" (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Remember: It's victimizing women. (Score:3)
But if it's man, like Hulk Hogan's sex tape, it's "journalism." And Slashdot curators don't give two shits.
Re:Stop going after the site (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. It's not illegal to post nude pictures of someone (in most western countries), however at least here in Finland there exists case law which has deemed quite clearly that publishing such photos without the consent of the person in them is a violation of privacy. It doesn't matter that you agreed to be photographed, or even took and sent the pictures yourself, that does not grant the receiver the right to redistribute them.
The site is not violating the law, but the people who are posting pictures without permission are.
Re: (Score:3)
The site is breaking the law by facilitating those people that do to their own benefit. The fruit of the poisonous tree [wikipedia.org] is an apt metaphor.
Re: (Score:2)
If the person didn't specifically agree for the photos to be published, there is a legal concept of a "model release" [wikipedia.org] with respect to photos and commercial use. Commercial use may not be happening on the part of the uploader, but it certainly is with respect to the site and its advertising revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I think the "anon" part of the site's name implies that the photos are posted anonymously. And just because the women involved may know who the poster is doesn't mean she can prove it in a court of law. And even if she can, if the site is located offshore, it doesn't mean she can have the photo taken down. I'm not even sure if the original poster can take the photo down.
Go After the Posters? (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
yeah well when women complain they've been violated by having their pictures posted it would probably help if people believed them.
Re:also, little can be done (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
post-coital dysphoria I guess...
People who really suffer from that should get medical/mental help.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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-le
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:also, little can be done (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 con