Support NeoGAF

[T.M. MacReady]

She asked a question and I told her what was sexy to me. Then she responded with some exaggerated bullshit. I dunno if it's trolling, but it was kind of pointless.

egging you on with an obnoxious response and talking down to you is a form of trolling in my eyes

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

They keep trying to pass the Camera Phone Predator Alert Act. Something that I think would help. Japan and Korea already have similar laws in place.

Interesting.

1/9/2009--Introduced.Camera Phone Predator Alert Act - Requires any mobile phone containing a digital camera to sound a tone whenever a photograph is taken with the camera's phone. Prohibits such a phone from being equipped with a means of disabling or silencing the tone. Treats the requirement as a consumer product safety standard and requires enforcement by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

Would not stop jailbreakers.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

holy shit lol some people want laws against silent phone shutters

oh god the deep end we've gone off of it swim for your lives

 

[Devolution]

holy shit lol some people want laws against silent phone shutters

oh god the deep end we've gone off of it swim for your lives

I could see businesses wanting this more. I remember some corporate espionage paranoia when cameras were first implemented into phones.

 

[FyreWulff]

public is public. If they are in a private place thats different

You are confusing someone being in a public place with their body being public property. Just because a woman is inside a store or bakery or on the sidewalk doesn't mean they've signed themselves away to people that don't have any decency.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I could see businesses wanting this more. I remember some corporate espionage paranoia when cameras were first implemented into phones.

That is a good point, I could totally see it implemented once Google Glasses hits the market.

Or maybe we'll see some new type of device that makes it harder to take pictures of you?
I dunno if that would even work though.

You are confusing someone being in a public place with their body being public property. Just because a woman is inside a store or bakery or on the sidewalk doesn't mean they've signed themselves away to people that don't have any decency.

That is a good point as well - the public is not the wild west.
There are already a ton of laws governing your behavior in public, and I don't see why it's such a drastic step to include another governing rule of not taking "creepshots".

 

[Jake McLargeHuge]

Shaming -> to legislature. Without an outcry from women how would there be public pressure on the legislature?

I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing the connection. Outcry from women is different to me than wagging your finger and making them feel like shit. It was the power of the female lobby that got it greenlit, but how much that power came from changing norms? Chicken and egg, so on and so forth.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

Any person that is the focus of your photograph.
That would enable photographers to still take scenic pictures that people happen to be in, or in crowds where no distinguishable person is the subject.

And anyone organizing any sort of large scale event would probably have to require a waiver signed by every single person there.

And loads of photos people just take out in public with no sexual purpose would become illegal. Cameras also don't just magically un-focus everything not centered in the frame.

Very difficult to define it seems to me.

There's also nothing stopping us from just extending sexual harassment laws, and making it sexual harassment of some degree to take a picture with focus of someone's primary/secondary sexual characteristics without their consent.

So basically most photos of people would become potentially sexual harassment.

Or is this some sort of "if you zoom" law?

Again.. seems hard to define.

You could put something on the books.. and it might help instill some fear, but I'm unsure how that is going to be prosecuted.

 

[pigeon]

I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing the connection. Outcry from women is different to me than wagging your finger and making them feel like shit. It was the power of the female lobby that got it greenlit, but how much that power came from changing norms? Chicken and egg, so on and so forth.

So you're saying we should advocate for change without actually making anybody feel bad? I'm pretty sure MLK wrote a thing about that.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

And anyone organizing any sort of large scale event would probably have to require a waiver signed by every single person there.

And loads of photos people just take out in public with no sexual purpose would become illegal. Cameras also don't just magically un-focus everything not centered in the frame.

Very difficult to define it seems to me.

Yeah, that's the problem with a general law aimed at removing creepshots.
Which is why I think it's better to treat it as sexual harassment, and adjust the law for that purpose.

So basically most photos of people would become potentially sexual harassment.

Or is this some sort of "if you zoom" law?

Again.. seems hard to define.

You could put something on the books.. and it might help instill some fear, but I'm unsure how that is going to be prosecuted.

Doesn't seem very hard to define tbh, just take a look at all the photos in the OP.
In pretty much all of them, the buttocks of the female specimens photographed is in the center of the image. There, that's your criteria:

"If the primary/secondary characteristics take place in the center of the image, it shall be interpreted as an act of sexual harassment of the third degree unless the photographer can show that the subject has consented to the picture being published"

But yes, it would mostly be for the sake of deterrence, and just making the big sites that host this stuff (reddit, etc) take a pro-active policy (which would probably just mean a ban on candid pictures of strangers).

It might not be super effective, but it'd be better than nothing imho.

 

[Byakuya769]

I've been accused of trolling a couple times in this thread, I don't think people know what trolling is.

Likewise. Never show anyone the import of their reasoning. If you do, you're trolling.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

Doesn't seem very hard to define tbh, just take a look at all the photos in the OP.
In pretty much all of them, the buttocks of the female specimens photographed is in the centre of the image.

But yes, it would mostly be for the sake of deterrence, and just making the big sites that host this stuff (reddit, etc) take a pro-active policy (which would probably just mean a ban on candid pictures of strangers).

It just seems like the kind of law legislatures would fumble over.

But maybe something simple with a clear "intent has to be provable" would not be too far-reaching.. posting a picture on "JerkOffToTheseCandidAssPhotos.com" is rather obvious, but I do think we have to be careful not to enact legislation that ends up having unreasonable consequences.

And yeah.. would at least scare off a lot of people.

And require some extra web site moderation. This thread for instance.

 

[T.M. MacReady]

Likewise. Never show anyone the import of their reasoning. If you do, you're trolling.

disagreeing with someone doesn't mean you get to be obnoxious and talk down to them, regardless of whether or not "trolling" is the right word for it.

 

[Moral Panic]

Lol, center of the image, so if her ass is to the right it's not a crime? HAHAHAHAHAH

It's an impolite thing to do but the idea that this should be a crime is completely and utterly preposterous imo.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

It just seems like the kind of law legislatures would fumble over.

But maybe something simple with a clear "intent has to be provable" would not be too far-reaching.. posting a picture on "JerkOffToTheseCandidAssPhotos.com" is rather obvious, but I do think we have to be careful not to enact legislation that ends up having unreasonable consequences.

And yeah.. would at least scare off a lot of people.

And require some extra web site moderation. This thread for instance.

Agreed, that would just as fine and result in websites clean up their act. Most amateur pictures and porn would probably also be removed from the biggest of sites, and that's just a plus as I bet that most of them were uploaded without consent.

So yeah, a law would probably work if its intended target were websites and image hosts, rather than individuals who upload the stuff - and that sounds better than the current situation.

 

[Byakuya769]

disagreeing with someone doesn't mean you get to be obnoxious and talk down to them, regardless of whether or not "trolling" is the right word for it.

So no pants, no well fitted dresses. What else.

THAT is too much to handle? Dudes are arguing on what women should and shouldn't wear to avoid surprise lewd photos, and that exchange is heated?

I think you guys don't like being made to feel bad about bad opinions.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

You pretty much have to do this anyway or else you're subject to a lawsuit. Even if you win it's not worth the hassle.

What are you referring to here?

 

[Devolution]

What are you referring to here?

When you publish a photo of someone without their express permission.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

I could see businesses wanting this more. I remember some corporate espionage paranoia when cameras were first implemented into phones.

Regardless of whether "business" wants something, everyone in the country should not be subject to an intrusive law. "Businesses" can implement rules on their boardrooms, but it isn't the government's job to get in on this.

Also, it's completely legal to take photos in public and sometimes it just isn't practical to have a manufactured shutter sound blasting away. I can't imagine how much more annoying restaurants would become as everyone now has to audibly announce their instagram sushi pictures.

It's not an invasion of privacy to take a picture of someone in public because there's no reasonable expectation of privacy while you're in public, regardless of how loose or tight your clothes are.

It's weird and creepy to take these photos, but it shouldn't be legislated against. That's just bizarrely totalitarian.

 

[Devolution]

Regardless of whether "business" wants something, everyone in the country should not be subject to an intrusive law. "Businesses" can implement rules on their boardrooms, but it isn't the government's job to get in on this.

Also, it's completely legal to take photos in public and sometimes it just isn't practical to have a manufactured shutter sound blasting away. I can't imagine how much more annoying restaurants would become as everyone now has to audibly announce their instagram sushi pictures.

It's not an invasion of privacy to take a picture of someone in public because there's no reasonable expectation of privacy while you're in public, regardless of how loose or tight your clothes are.

It's weird and creepy to take these photos, but it shouldn't be legislated against. That's just bizarrely totalitarian.

I haven't really ruled on whether it should be illegal or not but at the very least people shouldn't encourage this behavior or think these photos are appropriate. Mostly I was commenting on how business tends to skew legislation anyway.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

When you publish a photo of someone without their express permission.

What law is that?

 

[TUROK]

It's not an invasion of privacy to take a picture of someone in public because there's no reasonable expectation of privacy while you're in public, regardless of how loose or tight your clothes are.

It's weird and creepy to take these photos, but it shouldn't be legislated against. That's just bizarrely totalitarian.

Yeah. Not everything indecent needs to be governed by law.

 

[Jake McLargeHuge]

So you're saying we should advocate for change without actually making anybody feel bad? I'm pretty sure MLK wrote a thing about that.

Well if your express purpose is for shame, then I'd say you're either just serving your own ego or lack a nuanced approach to a difficult issue.

 

[Canis lupus]

There are lots of creep vids by amateurs on xhamster.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

There are lots of creep vids by amateurs on xhamster.

xhamster? what the heck is that site? a giant wheel? I'm at work so I can't go there to find out, with my luck it's probably some porno site.

 

[T.M. MacReady]

THAT is too much to handle? Dudes are arguing on what women should and shouldn't wear to avoid surprise lewd photos, and that exchange is heated?

I think you guys don't like being made to feel bad about bad opinions.

you're not taking that in context, and I'm not gonna bother arguing with you about it.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

When you publish a photo of someone without their express permission.

You don't need express permission to publish photos of people who had no "expectation of privacy."

Other than to not violate other lies like being completely libelous.

 

[Devolution]

What law is that?

If you're taking photos of someone's likeness (or a group) it's best to get their permission so you're not hassled down the road about it. If there is any sort of expectation of privacy you can get in trouble. Out in public, they will side with the photographer but if you get the permission of those you are photographing first you won't even have to deal with someone trying to get you in trouble for public photos.

 

[Plywood]

more baiting material

Does anyone else think it's interesting that the OP also created these threads?

Women bending over in front of you; always intentional?

Have you ever invaded someones privacy without them knowing it? Would you?

this is good stuff

 

[Messypandas]

xhamster? what the heck is that site? a giant wheel? I'm at work so I can't go there to find out, with my luck it's probably some porno site.

your face when you find out

Spoiler

yup its porn

 

[TUROK]

more baiting material

this is good stuff

Well, he's not taking pictures of them, so it's cool and totally acceptable.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

If you're taking photos of someone's likeness (or a group) it's best to get their permission so you're not hassled down the road about it. If there is any sort of expectation of privacy you can get in trouble. Out in public, they will side with the photographer but if you get the permission of those you are photographing first you won't even have to deal with someone trying to get you in trouble for public photos.

You are too much Devolution.

There is no such law, is the correct response to the question. You were wrong, it's not that hard to admit.

You pretty much have to do this anyway or else you're subject to a lawsuit. Even if you win it's not worth the hassle.

No. In fact such a suit would be thrown out without you having to fight it. To say you are subject to a lawsuit for publishing a photo of someone in public without their permission is not really correct.. any more than anyone can technically "File" a lawsuit at any time on a whim.

That's why no photographers bother to ask you for permission, pretty much ever.

 

[Devolution]

You are too much Devolution.

There is no such law, is the correct response to the question. You were wrong, it's not that hard to admit.

I didn't say there was a law I said if there is an expectation of privacy that the person feels was violated they can take you to court even if they're wrong.

 

[pigeon]

Well if your express purpose is for shame, then I'd say you're either just serving your own ego or lack a nuanced approach to a difficult issue.

Except that my post explicitly said the goal is advocating for change, and you're the one complaining that advocacy is making people feel bad so we should stop doing it. Have you considered reading the words that I write?

No. In fact such a suit would be thrown out without you having to fight it. To say you are subject to a lawsuit for publishing a photo of someone in public without their permission is not really correct.. any more than anyone can technically "File" a lawsuit at any time on a whim.

That's why no photographers bother to ask you for permission, pretty much ever.

The interesting thing about this comment is that it's complete bullshit, which is why photographer waivers exist and people use them all the time. Fascinating, right?

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

I didn't say there was a law I said if there is an expectation of privacy that the person feels was violated they can take you to court even if they're wrong.

No, you are now lying about the conversation.

Any person that is the focus of your photograph.
That would enable photographers to still take scenic pictures that people happen to be in, or in crowds where no distinguishable person is the subject.

You pretty much have to do this anyway or else you're subject to a lawsuit. Even if you win it's not worth the hassle.

No Devo, you do not have to ask permission of people in crowds or scenic pictures out in public.

See how that works?

 

[Tomat]

Yeah. There is value in the right subreddits though.

It's funny that people make this exception for reddit, but not 4chan.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

The interesting thing about this comment is that it's complete bullshit, which is why photographer waivers exist and people use them all the time. Fascinating, right?

I didn't deny the existence of such waivers.

But thanks anyways.

So photographers don't take pictures of crowds and publish them huh?

I signed a waiver when I waved at the camera at the Mariner's game in July and ended up on TV huh?

Yeah.. no.

 

[LuffyZoro]

I'm split on this. On the one hand, it's totally creepy and not good, but on the other, there doesn't seem to be a good method to legislate against it, even avoiding the question of whether or not you should.

 

[Trey]

semantics

Given the context of her posts, I think she meant civil suit.

 

[Devolution]

Given the context of her posts, I think she meant civil suit.

Yes. I did.

 

[Plywood]

Well, he's not taking pictures of them, so it's cool and totally acceptable.

Yeah, just alerting us to this totally really issue plaguing our society today as we know it and how we should be aware of how dastardly humanity can be with their camera phones. Just a regular discussion.

 

[Inflammable Slinky]

Gender topics, the only time OT becomes MORE insufferable than the gaming side!

On topic: Reddit Delenda Est

 

[FyreWulff]

I'm split on this. On the one hand, it's totally creepy and not good, but on the other, there doesn't seem to be a good method to legislate against it, even avoiding the question of whether or not you should.

"If I were to ask this person if I could take a picture of them, would they say no?"

If you think they'd say yes, then you ask them and get a pic.

If you think they'd say no, don't take a pic.

In general, don't take pictures of a person unless they're aware that you're taking a picture of them.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

Given the context of her posts, I think she meant civil suit.

I understood that it was civil suits. Hence why I said you wouldn't have to fight the suit and it would get thrown out.

There is no standard for people having their picture taken in public. That is not a viable lawsuit to sue a photographer over.

Unless they are sneaking onto your property or taking a photo into the windows of your home, etc.

edit: And same with basic publishing of the photo.. if you can claim it was for any sort of editorial purpose, which is how most of these photos are posted, you can do it.

 

[FyreWulff]

Can't there be some middle way though? I mean are there no pants that are comfortable without showing your complete ass while still making you look good?

Maybe drop the idea that everything is done for you and other people aren't your property?

 

[Riposte]

It is a shame my penis is an insensitive dick.

 

[ReBurn]

It is a shame my penis is an insensitive dick.

Circumcision will do that to people, too.

 

[Jake McLargeHuge]

Except that my post explicitly said the goal is advocating for change, and you're the one complaining that advocacy is making people feel bad so we should stop doing it. Have you considered reading the words that I write?

And there are many ways to go about advocacy, some of those by employing some sense of tact. The advocacy that I think does little good is one that relies solely on shaming. Shaming that is only tangentially related to a change of heart when it isn't framing the discussion as me vs. you. I may have misinterpreted what you said just like you misinterpreted that I'm against advocacy for change.

 

[out0v0rder]

It is a shame my penis is an insensitive dick.

so you are circumcised?


ontopic: look what thinkgeek released...

http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/eede/?pfm=homepage_BestDeals_9_eede

 

[FyreWulff]

It is a shame my penis is an insensitive dick.

I wasn't aware you could take pictures with your penis