PDA

View Full Version : "Revenge Porn" is now illegal in California




VoluntaryAmerican
10-05-2013, 08:35 PM
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday signed a bill outlawing so-called revenge porn and levying possible jail time for people who post naked photos of their exes after bitter breakups.

Senate Bill 255, which takes effect immediately, makes it a misdemeanor to post identifiable nude pictures of someone else online without permission with the intent to cause emotional distress or humiliation. The penalty is up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/02/jerry-brown-revenge-porn_n_4030175.html

Danke
10-05-2013, 08:38 PM
Even if they are sporting some awesome tattoos?

aGameOfThrones
10-05-2013, 08:42 PM
makes it a misdemeanor to post identifiable nude pictures of someone else online without permission with the intent to cause emotional distress or humiliation

I didn't post that picture to humiliate her, I posted her picture so that everyone could see how well I'm doing.

angelatc
10-05-2013, 08:54 PM
I would love to believe that SCOTUS will strike this down, but you never know any more...

Feeding the Abscess
10-05-2013, 09:13 PM
The person uploading the material is in possession of the material, and in the vast majority of cases, rightfully so. How this is even being debated is a sign of how far gone property rights are.

matt0611
10-05-2013, 09:19 PM
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday signed a bill outlawing so-called revenge porn and levying possible jail time for people who post naked photos of their exes after bitter breakups.

Senate Bill 255, which takes effect immediately, makes it a misdemeanor to post identifiable nude pictures of someone else online without permission with the intent to cause emotional distress or humiliation. The penalty is up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/02/jerry-brown-revenge-porn_n_4030175.html


How can that intent even be proven? What if its just to make a buck? What if its just for amusement? etc

specsaregood
10-05-2013, 09:22 PM
How can that intent even be proven? What if its just to make a buck? What if its just for amusement? etc

I would guess that many of the people that upload it with that intent, send a message to the victim bragging about uploading it and stating their reasoning behind it.

Christian Liberty
10-05-2013, 09:23 PM
I would love to believe that SCOTUS will strike this down, but you never know any more...

I'd be opposed to that. We don't need any more Federal tyranny. Stephan Kinsella has argued at length why even for an anarchist it would be absolutely absurd to support a usurption of the constitution at this point.

My goal is to destroy as much of the Federal Government as I can, not to prop it up to deal with petty tyrants at the State Level.

All that said, any law based on "intent" is a bad law.

dannno
10-05-2013, 10:27 PM
That's a shame.

gwax23
10-05-2013, 10:31 PM
Sounds like some californian legislators had some of their nudy pics posted online.

Christian Liberty
10-05-2013, 10:32 PM
The person uploading the material is in possession of the material, and in the vast majority of cases, rightfully so. How this is even being debated is a sign of how far gone property rights are.

For the record, I completely agree with this. My disdain for SCOTUS involvement should not be taken as a defense of the law.

Varin
10-06-2013, 01:01 AM
Why is not slander in the first place?

Cabal
10-06-2013, 01:12 AM
with the intent to cause emotional distress or humiliation

That seems like it'd be very easy to defend against and/or very difficult to prove in a court of criminal law, absent some kind of explicit declaration of that intention.

Varin
10-06-2013, 01:42 AM
That seems like it'd be very easy to defend against and/or very difficult to prove in a court of criminal law, absent some kind of explicit declaration of that intention.

Within reasonable doubt. I would say its pretty safe to assume that intent when private pictures and/or tapes are released to the public after a breakup. Sharing with a few friends is of course different.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
10-06-2013, 02:08 AM
"But he said he would love me forever."

dannno
10-06-2013, 02:27 AM
Why is not slander in the first place?

Is it slander if I "make public" a picture of my ex-gf eating an ice cream cone or is that free speech? Is there a fundamental difference between that and a picture of her, well, you can imagine..

Because presumably they agreed to be videotaped having sex, so if one agrees to being videotaped having sex one must also accept the consequences that may result which could mean that a copy becomes public.

It would probably be best to not tape yourself having sex if you have a very strong desire not to have tapes of you having sex becoming public, or if you want to be compensated you should probably draw up your contract before hand.

dannno
10-06-2013, 02:31 AM
Within reasonable doubt. I would say its pretty safe to assume that intent when private pictures and/or tapes are released to the public after a breakup.up.

Yes, but you have to prove BEYOND reasonable doubt, not WITHIN reasonable doubt, regarding why the pictures were posted. If the person posting receives any type of compensation they may upload it to the site for that reason and feign the entire 'trying to get back' at her thing just for the money. As long as when they made the tape, they didn't agree to any sort of contract about the future of how the recording could be used the unfortunately she is not within her right of ownership of the tape and it would belong to the person who took it.

You may be able to make a case if it was a hidden camera.

puppetmaster
10-06-2013, 02:45 AM
Can someone show me some examples please. I don't quite understand what this is and I need a visual aid to assist comprehension

Thanks:D

NorthCarolinaLiberty
10-06-2013, 03:35 AM
I doubt if any of these pictures have any monetary value. Just sayin'.

bolil
10-06-2013, 03:47 AM
No tearduct left undrained. I guess, in lieu of tears, I will just spit. Here is to an end of Urination

Varin
10-06-2013, 04:22 AM
Yes, but you have to prove BEYOND reasonable doubt, not WITHIN reasonable doubt, regarding why the pictures were posted. If the person posting receives any type of compensation they may upload it to the site for that reason and feign the entire 'trying to get back' at her thing just for the money. As long as when they made the tape, they didn't agree to any sort of contract about the future of how the recording could be used the unfortunately she is not within her right of ownership of the tape and it would belong to the person who took it.

You may be able to make a case if it was a hidden camera.

Of course meaning that if something is not within a reasonable doubt it is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Who has ownership of the tape is only interesting if you are dealing g with a copyright infringement, here we are talking about slander.

That someone takes a risk like not looking their car or as a girl walking alone at night in a shady neighborhood might be considered careless or stupid but in no way does that excuse the crime (theft, rape). If you are making a private sex tape the assumption is of course that it was meant to remain private unless there are evidence to the contrary (monetary compensation, having released similar things in the past etc.).

As for the objection that you would lack intent because you sold it for money and not to cause emotional distress or humiliation it should be enough that you are aware of the consequence of your actions and ignored them. Otherwise you could always claim lack of intent when you do not give a f** about the the consequences of your actions.

ClydeCoulter
10-06-2013, 09:59 AM
I guess it's going to come down to "pre-humptual" agreements.

Maybe it should be lawful to shoot a person that breaks a trust? Because that is what it is. Screw jail time, clean their house and take out their dog for a month.

juleswin
10-06-2013, 10:08 AM
How can that intent even be proven? What if its just to make a buck? What if its just for amusement? etc

You'll be surprised to see some people posting the reason why they posted said picture with the picture. I bet it would be very easy to prove the intent with 90% of the revenge porn pictures out there.

Theocrat
10-06-2013, 10:21 AM
There is a logical fallacy in that statute, itself. The fallacy is subtle because at its common denominator is an ethical law which has been ignored. Nonetheless, the fallacy is one of missing the point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi). It comes to an irrelevant conclusion because the issue is not whether or not California should ban "revenge porn." The deeper issue is whether the state of California has the ethical right to ban any type of porn. I know that sounds strange coming from me, but I happen to believe that pornography should be done away with on a more "bottom-up" strategy, starting with private individuals and groups (like a church or a porn rehabilitation ministry).

Woods
10-06-2013, 10:24 AM
The person uploading the material is in possession of the material, and in the vast majority of cases, rightfully so. How this is even being debated is a sign of how far gone property rights are.A person has no property in his or her own image or likeness?

Natural Citizen
10-06-2013, 10:25 AM
There is a logical fallacy in that statute, itself. The fallacy is subtle because at its common denominator is an ethical law which has been ignored

Ethical law is a matter of choice. Right? Chosen law? :rolleyes:

S_F was just talking about this very same thing in the other thread before he took his basketball and went home.

Theocrat
10-06-2013, 10:30 AM
Ethical law is a matter of choice. Right? Chosen law? :rolleyes:

S_F was just talking about this very same thing in the other thread before he took his basketball and went home.

Choices are subjective, while laws are objective. So, an ethical law is not established by mere choice. Rather, ethical choices are determined as "good" or "evil" by how they accord with an absolute ethical law.

dinosaur
10-06-2013, 10:41 AM
A person has no property in his or her own image or likeness?

If there isn't, why is there such a thing as a model release form? According to Wikipedia, consent is needed for an identifiable picture taken in a private place. The law differentiates between photographs taken in public and private settings.

Natural Citizen
10-06-2013, 10:42 AM
A person has no property in his or her own image or likeness?


Yeah, the youngins call these "selfies", btw.

Seems like I learn a new word every day. :rolleyes:

MelissaWV
10-06-2013, 10:47 AM
You'll be surprised to see some people posting the reason why they posted said picture with the picture. I bet it would be very easy to prove the intent with 90% of the revenge porn pictures out there.

This. Hell some of the websites are specifically named and label the photos/video as revenge-driven. Having said that, the Government getting involved only increases the opportunity for abuse of the statute, increases the likely level of humiliation for someone who is a victim of this kind of act, and decreases the chance that something meaningful will be done to stop the victimization (ie - if you demand a site take down a particularly popular video, all that will happen is that 200 other sites will have it the next day, likely with the tagline that it is "banned" material, just to draw in more viewers).

MelissaWV
10-06-2013, 10:48 AM
Yeah, the youngins call these "selfies", btw.

Seems like I learn a new word every day. :rolleyes:

The law does not include selfies, which are pictures of yourself taken by you.

MichaelDavis
10-06-2013, 10:57 AM
It's not refered to as "Commiefornia" for nothing.

http://www.santacruzlive.com/blogs/epicenter/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/California-Commiefornia-State-Flag-Unarmed-Bear1.jpg

Natural Citizen
10-06-2013, 11:14 AM
The law does not include selfies, which are pictures of yourself taken by you.

Well. I don't know. It seems that smart people could destroy this law. The entire argument can be spun into a IP squabble.

I read some place that instagram claims ownership of uploaded images.

In practice, I agree with people having the means to counter the skullduggery if someone is putting pictures of them all over the www though.

Of course, it wouldn't truly be "revenge pron" unless the person taking the picture were in it so...yeah. I mean what if I happen to snap a selfie in the mirror at the very second sweet Cherie steps out of the shower behind me? Then what?

dannno
10-06-2013, 02:42 PM
Of course meaning that if something is not within a reasonable doubt it is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Who has ownership of the tape is only interesting if you are dealing g with a copyright infringement, here we are talking about slander.

That someone takes a risk like not looking their car or as a girl walking alone at night in a shady neighborhood might be considered careless or stupid but in no way does that excuse the crime (theft, rape). If you are making a private sex tape the assumption is of course that it was meant to remain private unless there are evidence to the contrary (monetary compensation, having released similar things in the past etc.).

As for the objection that you would lack intent because you sold it for money and not to cause emotional distress or humiliation it should be enough that you are aware of the consequence of your actions and ignored them. Otherwise you could always claim lack of intent when you do not give a f** about the the consequences of your actions.

Here's the problem with your comparison -

Your argument trying to tie rape to making public a private sex tape is only valid if the private sex tape was taken against the will of the participant... In other words, if you agree to making a private sex tape, that is only a verbal contract which does not hold up in the court of law and the assumption must be that you are ok with the video possibly becoming public... which is why again if you do not want a sex tape of yourself made public it is probably best not to make any sort of sex tape or draw up a contract before hand.

matt0611
10-06-2013, 02:48 PM
You'll be surprised to see some people posting the reason why they posted said picture with the picture. I bet it would be very easy to prove the intent with 90% of the revenge porn pictures out there.

Sure, it is now. But now that this law has passed...

Natural Citizen
10-06-2013, 02:48 PM
Here's the problem with your comparison -

Your argument trying to tie rape to making public a private sex tape is only valid if the private sex tape was taken against the will of the participant... In other words, if you agree to making a private sex tape, that is only a verbal contract which does not hold up in the court of law and the assumption must be that you are ok with the video possibly becoming public... which is why again if you do not want a sex tape of yourself made public it is probably best not to make any sort of sex tape or draw up a contract before hand.

This is a great example of why Industrial Age logic does not compute in the Information Age.

Keith and stuff
10-06-2013, 03:04 PM
So New Hampshire is now the only state where it is legal?

ClydeCoulter
10-06-2013, 03:07 PM
Here's the problem with your comparison -

Your argument trying to tie rape to making public a private sex tape is only valid if the private sex tape was taken against the will of the participant... In other words, if you agree to making a private sex tape, that is only a verbal contract which does not hold up in the court of law and the assumption must be that you are ok with the video possibly becoming public... which is why again if you do not want a sex tape of yourself made public it is probably best not to make any sort of sex tape or draw up a contract before hand.

Ah, no expectation of privacy...hmmmm

Czolgosz
10-06-2013, 03:08 PM
This good law for State. Drum up much business for court system.

ObiRandKenobi
10-06-2013, 03:53 PM
i thought "revenge porn" was something else.

PaulConventionWV
10-06-2013, 04:30 PM
I didn't post that picture to humiliate her, I posted her picture so that everyone could see how well I'm doing.

How does that show how well you're doing if you're broken up?

PaulConventionWV
10-06-2013, 04:32 PM
The person uploading the material is in possession of the material, and in the vast majority of cases, rightfully so. How this is even being debated is a sign of how far gone property rights are.

You're right. If they didn't want their pictures posted online, then they shouldn't give them to someone they think will do that. If they still do, then it's their right to and the girl (presumably) made the decision to give it to them.

PaulConventionWV
10-06-2013, 04:33 PM
I'd be opposed to that. We don't need any more Federal tyranny. Stephan Kinsella has argued at length why even for an anarchist it would be absolutely absurd to support a usurption of the constitution at this point.

My goal is to destroy as much of the Federal Government as I can, not to prop it up to deal with petty tyrants at the State Level.

All that said, any law based on "intent" is a bad law.

//

juleswin
10-06-2013, 04:35 PM
How does that show how well you're doing if you're broken up?

If the couple broke up, then last part should be changed to "how well I did"

PaulConventionWV
10-06-2013, 04:35 PM
Why is not slander in the first place?

It's only slander if you think your own body says something horribly offensive about you... in which case, you probably don't have friends.

MelissaWV
10-06-2013, 04:42 PM
It's only slander if you think your own body says something horribly offensive about you... in which case, you probably don't have friends.

I was going to post some examples but then realized where this thread is. Suffice to say you can add captions to photos --- even clothed ones --- to make something innocent be utterly offensive. It doesn't have to be about whether or not someone's ashamed of their body.

PaulConventionWV
10-06-2013, 04:42 PM
A person has no property in his or her own image or likeness?

What if they're both in the picture? How do you divvy up the property rights to a picture if there is more than one person in it? How about we save ourselves the frustration of trying to figure that out and decide that whomever took the picture has the right to keep it or give it to whomever they want and it becomes theirs... simple.

MelissaWV
10-06-2013, 04:43 PM
What if they're both in the picture? How do you divvy up the property rights to a picture if there is more than one person in it? How about we save ourselves the frustration of trying to figure that out and decide that whomever took the picture has the right to keep it or give it to whomever they want and it becomes theirs... simple.

That's such a great idea! Certainly in the example given earlier in this thread, where someone's "taking a selfie" and their girlfriend is getting out of the shower behind them... he took the photo therefore he should have rights to profit from her naked image, of course.

smdh.

PaulConventionWV
10-06-2013, 04:48 PM
I was going to post some examples but then realized where this thread is. Suffice to say you can add captions to photos --- even clothed ones --- to make something innocent be utterly offensive. It doesn't have to be about whether or not someone's ashamed of their body.

Then the problem is the caption, not the photo.

PaulConventionWV
10-06-2013, 04:55 PM
That's such a great idea! Certainly in the example given earlier in this thread, where someone's "taking a selfie" and their girlfriend is getting out of the shower behind them... he took the photo therefore he should have rights to profit from her naked image, of course.

smdh.

How did I know this was going to be a sarcastic response?

Look, if someone broke into a girl's bathroom and took a naked picture of her without her consent, we would all be against that. But now the girl is okay with having that guy in her bathroom and she can't take the possible consequences? If she is so worried about that particular scenario, then she should only let him in there on the explicit condition that he doesn't take selfies while she's in there.

The bathroom is her property, right? So what, exactly, is new about this particular scenario that has been brought up? The girl has property rights so she makes the decisions about what goes on on the property. A picture is just a freakin' picture. If it worries you so much, then don't let people take selfies in your bathroom while you're naked in there.

What happened to the times when these little dramas and meaningless arguments could be settled without involving the state?

MelissaWV
10-06-2013, 04:58 PM
How did I know this was going to be a sarcastic response?

Look, if someone broke into a girl's bathroom and took a naked picture of her without her consent, we would all be against that. But now the girl is okay with having that guy in her bathroom and she can't take the possible consequences? If she is so worried about that particular scenario, then she should only let him in there on the explicit condition that he doesn't take selfies while she's in there.

The bathroom is her property, right? So what, exactly, is new about this particular scenario that has been brought up? The girl has property rights so she makes the decisions about what goes on on the property. A picture is just a freakin' picture. If it worries you so much, then don't let people take selfies in your bathroom while you're naked in there.

What happened to the times when these little dramas and meaningless arguments could be settled without involving the state?

Did I say to involve the state? Your "response" was that whoever takes the picture owns the rights to it. Period. Nothing else. Regardless of who's in it or why.

If that's not what you meant, it is what you typed. Nothing about the property owner, though I do find it interesting that you're implying that if it's HIS property and she dares to take a shower, or if it's their shared property at the time, then there's no big deal.

A picture is just a freakin' picture? Where were you when the naked body scanner debate was going on lol

Natural Citizen
10-06-2013, 05:08 PM
What if they're both in the picture? How do you divvy up the property rights to a picture if there is more than one person in it?

Terms of Service. All software on devics come with them. And then most applications are proprietary as well. You have to obviously agree to terms of service in order to use applications and such. Which could actually mean that any special means of saving/taking pictures are the property of the application engineer so...who knows. Maybe technically they own it and we're just too stupid to figure it out.

PaulConventionWV
10-06-2013, 05:11 PM
Did I say to involve the state? Your "response" was that whoever takes the picture owns the rights to it. Period. Nothing else. Regardless of who's in it or why.

If that's not what you meant, it is what you typed. Nothing about the property owner, though I do find it interesting that you're implying that if it's HIS property and she dares to take a shower, or if it's their shared property at the time, then there's no big deal.

A picture is just a freakin' picture? Where were you when the naked body scanner debate was going on lol

I thought the property rights stuff was self-evident. If you want to make the kind of commitment in jointly owning property with someone, then you should be able to take the consequences of that decision, including all of the conflicts that come with sharing space with someone. There are always conditions involved in such a contract. If that part of joint ownership concerns you, then make it explicit in the contract. If it's your property, then you can prevent people from taking pictures of you on your own property by defining the rules for them while they're there.

By the way, my statement that whomever takes the picture owns the picture is completely compatible with all of that stuff I said about property rights. I don't see any conflict in what I said. I never said anything about her DARING to take a shower (whatever that means) just that she should define the conditions on which she lets someone into a space where she knows she is going to be naked while they're in there. It's simple.

From what I understand about your post, you would not be okay with a guy taking pictures in your bathroom, which is kind of what this thread is about, so that means you support the law in question or at least some amended form of it in which a guy who takes pictures in your bathroom could be brought up on charges, correct?

PaulConventionWV
10-06-2013, 05:12 PM
Terms of Service. All software on devics come with them. And then most applications are proprietary as well. You have to obviously agree to terms of service in order to use applications and such.

What are you on about? Do you mean like filling out a contract before taking a picture?

asurfaholic
10-06-2013, 05:12 PM
All that said, any law based on "intent" is a bad law.

From my understanding of criminal law there are not many laws that are "based on intent." Rather the intent is just another piece of the puzzle that *MUST* come together entirely to result in a conviction, and is one more thing the prosecution must be able to prove.

So "intent" is really another protection from overzealous prosecutors. Something to support.

Natural Citizen
10-06-2013, 05:17 PM
What are you on about? Do you mean like filling out a contract before taking a picture?

What I mean is that the end user almost always has to agree to terms of service before using any application on devices. Like if you update your ios you have to agree to terms of service. Updates include all kinds of things relative to hardware, software...intent.

Look at the difference in facebooks terms of service and Twitter. Intent is a very, very carefully arranged bit of language. Those two actually differ a bit too on how intent is described and understood.

PaulConventionWV
10-06-2013, 05:25 PM
What I mean is that the end user almost always has to agree to terms of service before using any application on devices. Like if you update your ios you have to agree to terms of service. Updates include all kinds of things relative to hardware, software...intent.

Look at the difference in facebooks terms of service and Twitter. Intent is a very, very carefully arranged bit of language. Those two actually differ a bit too on how intent is described and understood.

Apparently technology has already left me behind, and I'm only 24. I don't even know what an app is. I have a cell phone that does the job just fine and I don't feel the need to get anything fancier.

The point being, I don't understand your comparison between an app and a photograph. Are you saying we should have contracts for taking pictures?

MelissaWV
10-06-2013, 05:32 PM
...

From what I understand about your post, you would not be okay with a guy taking pictures in your bathroom, which is kind of what this thread is about, so that means you support the law in question or at least some amended form of it in which a guy who takes pictures in your bathroom could be brought up on charges, correct?

I would not even be okay with him taking pictures in HIS bathroom without my explicit consent and participation. I have no idea how you leap from me not liking something, to me supporting a law against it. That isn't the case.

I will take your property example to the next level.

Let's say this isn't a house in question. Let's say it's an apartment. The landlord is actually the one that owns the place, so obviously if I am taking a shower on his property, and he "accidentally" takes a photo of me getting out, that's fair, yes? And he should be able to profit from that in whatever personal or financial way he wishes? Do you understand how absurd that is? Of course you have an out: I should explicitly put that into the lease that he cannot take photos or video of me, or audio recordings, in any way shape or form that might be construed as pornographic or titillating. If I fail to put this in writing in such an explicit manner, well I'm just asking for it.

The "DARING" part was that if I am on the boyfriend's property, and I have to use the restroom or take a shower, it seems like unless I sit there and come up with a contract ahead of time he not only owns his own property, but any images that occur on this property, including nudes of me. I am sure you negotiate your potential nudity with everyone before you unzip in their home to avoid having photos taken of you. That wouldn't be creepy at all.

Natural Citizen
10-06-2013, 05:35 PM
Apparently technology has already left me behind, and I'm only 24. I don't even know what an app is. I have a cell phone that does the job just fine and I don't feel the need to get anything fancier.

The point being, I don't understand your comparison between an app and a photograph. Are you saying we should have contracts for taking pictures?

Is it a iphone? Droid?

PaulConventionWV
10-06-2013, 05:43 PM
Is it a iphone? Droid?

Neither. It's an At&t Pantech

Natural Citizen
10-06-2013, 05:55 PM
Neither. It's an At&t Pantech

Well, I don't know what that is or if it has an operating system but the point is that most often you have to agree to terms of service before any functionality is available.Like uploading things...such as pictures. All of which establish intent or the definition of intent.

MelissaWV
10-06-2013, 05:56 PM
Well, I don't know what that is or if it has an operating system but the point is that most often you have to agree to terms of service before any functionality is available.Like uploading things...such as pictures.

Most likely if it's not using apps and a complicated OS, he'd be beholden to the terms of service of his carrier.

PaulConventionWV
10-06-2013, 06:04 PM
Well, I don't know what that is or if it has an operating system but the point is that most often you have to agree to terms of service before any functionality is available.Like uploading things...such as pictures. All of which establish intent or the definition of intent.

But that's for uploading it to the network, not for taking the picture. As for taking the picture, are you suggesting that there should be a terms of service for the act of taking a picture and holding a physical copy of it?

Natural Citizen
10-06-2013, 06:11 PM
But that's for uploading it to the network, not for taking the picture. As for taking the picture, are you suggesting that there should be a terms of service for the act of taking a picture and holding a physical copy of it?

You give the application permission or rights to manage the data in order for it to upload.You give the application permission when you install it or during first use if it's installed stock. Terms of service.

PaulConventionWV
10-06-2013, 06:16 PM
You give the application permission or rights to manage the data in order for it to upload.You give the application permission when you install it or during first use if it's installed stock. Terms of service.

Ok, that's all well and good, but are you suggesting that there should be a terms of service for taking a physical picture? Because I really don't know what your point is by describing a terms of service for an app.

Natural Citizen
10-06-2013, 06:21 PM
Most likely if it's not using apps and a complicated OS, he'd be beholden to the terms of service of his carrier.

Yeah, that's out of my range of knowledge though. Maybe someone esle could explain how they are relevant. I know that they are doing most of the reporting of data/communication. I forget how many requests for information they gave out last year. Without warrants even. And if there were warrants then the judges were just signing off willy nilly. I think it was in the millions maybe.

Natural Citizen
10-06-2013, 06:22 PM
Ok, that's all well and good, but are you suggesting that there should be a terms of service for taking a physical picture? Because I really don't know what your point is by describing a terms of service for an app.

No. I am opposed to corporate dictation of rules that apply to me. It suggests property rights. Is why I brought up the instagram thing earlier.

I'd have to actually run into a situation where I can't phsically do something wit hmy camera unless I agree to some inc's rule. I just can't think of anything off of the top of my head. I don't even use my camera for anything, really. I have a regular digital camera.

Alex Libman
10-06-2013, 06:27 PM
Fuck Commiefornia!

You don't want shit made public, get an NDA, period.

PaulConventionWV
10-06-2013, 06:27 PM
I would not even be okay with him taking pictures in HIS bathroom without my explicit consent and participation. I have no idea how you leap from me not liking something, to me supporting a law against it. That isn't the case.

I thought we were talking about legal ramifications here, not just gossip about what we like/dislike. If you don't want him to take pictures in his bathroom, then don't go in his bathroom.


I will take your property example to the next level.

Let's say this isn't a house in question. Let's say it's an apartment. The landlord is actually the one that owns the place, so obviously if I am taking a shower on his property, and he "accidentally" takes a photo of me getting out, that's fair, yes? And he should be able to profit from that in whatever personal or financial way he wishes? Do you understand how absurd that is? Of course you have an out: I should explicitly put that into the lease that he cannot take photos or video of me, or audio recordings, in any way shape or form that might be construed as pornographic or titillating. If I fail to put this in writing in such an explicit manner, well I'm just asking for it.

If the landlord does that, he's most likely violating the contract you signed when you leased the apartment. If you are talking about your bf and not the landlord, who signed the lease? Who's paying for it? Nobody said you were asking for it, but the reality is that if it so concerns you, then YES, put it in the lease agreement, by all means. You're trying to make it seem like this is absurd when it's really not. You should be prepared to face these kinds of situations in real life.


The "DARING" part was that if I am on the boyfriend's property, and I have to use the restroom or take a shower, it seems like unless I sit there and come up with a contract ahead of time he not only owns his own property, but any images that occur on this property, including nudes of me. I am sure you negotiate your potential nudity with everyone before you unzip in their home to avoid having photos taken of you. That wouldn't be creepy at all.

No, you don't have to make out a contract. Just lock the door when you use the restroom or don't go in in the first place. Like I said, it's simple, but you're making it complicated. If you don't trust the guy THAT much then what are you doing in his house? EDIT: or vice versa?

PaulConventionWV
10-06-2013, 06:38 PM
No. I am opposed to corporate dictation of rules that apply to me. It suggests property rights. Is why I brought up the instagram thing earlier.

I'd have to actually run into a situation where I can't phsically do something wit hmy camera unless I agree to some inc's rule. I just can't think of anything off of the top of my head. I don't even use my camera for anything, really. I have a regular digital camera.

Ok, so still not sure what the point is, then. My original point was that the person who takes the picture has ownership of the picture. If it's their camera, then they can take pictures with it and keep them or give them away. Anyone who doesn't want their picture taken should take the necessary precautions. This technology has been around since the 1800s, so it's not like we need some new rule to deal with all the privacy issues that come with the development of cameras. This is the way it has been and the way it should be: the person can take pictures wherever and of whomever they want as long as they are not trespassing.

MelissaWV
10-06-2013, 06:45 PM
...
No, you don't have to make out a contract. Just lock the door when you use the restroom or don't go in in the first place. Like I said, it's simple, but you're making it complicated. If you don't trust the guy THAT much then what are you doing in his house? EDIT: or vice versa?

It isn't complicated, no. It should be a civil matter, with the considerations I talked about ages ago in this same thread. And no, just because someone disrobes --- partially or completely --- in a situation does not constitute some sort of consent to be photographed and to have those images used for sexual purposes. Same with when a woman's at the ob/gyn (yes that did come up in another thread), or on her landlord's property, or in a dressing room trying on clothing. Honestly I've only seen you and dannno arguing that anything different should be the case.

MelissaWV
10-06-2013, 06:48 PM
Ok, so still not sure what the point is, then. My original point was that the person who takes the picture has ownership of the picture. If it's their camera, then they can take pictures with it and keep them or give them away. Anyone who doesn't want their picture taken should take the necessary precautions. This technology has been around since the 1800s, so it's not like we need some new rule to deal with all the privacy issues that come with the development of cameras. This is the way it has been and the way it should be: the person can take pictures wherever and of whomever they want as long as they are not trespassing.

Remind me never to use the bathroom or a dressing room at your store.

PaulConventionWV
10-06-2013, 06:49 PM
It isn't complicated, no. It should be a civil matter, with the considerations I talked about ages ago in this same thread. And no, just because someone disrobes --- partially or completely --- in a situation does not constitute some sort of consent to be photographed and to have those images used for sexual purposes. Same with when a woman's at the ob/gyn (yes that did come up in another thread), or on her landlord's property, or in a dressing room trying on clothing. Honestly I've only seen you and dannno arguing that anything different should be the case.

Different than what? I don't know what you're arguing. I've never said that disrobing amounts to consent to be photographed, just that the woman who doesn't want to be photographed nude should not put herself in situations where that might happen.

Keith and stuff
10-06-2013, 06:53 PM
For porn peddlers, it seems, it is now NH or bust.

Natural Citizen
10-06-2013, 07:16 PM
This paper reminded me of this thread for whatever reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

http://blog.codeguard.com/google-cracks-mughshot-sites/

Bohner
10-06-2013, 07:28 PM
Different than what? I don't know what you're arguing. I've never said that disrobing amounts to consent to be photographed, just that the woman who doesn't want to be photographed nude should not put herself in situations where that might happen.

The litmus test is whether that woman has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the situation. You can't take pictures of your naked girlfriend without her knowledge or consent in private places because even if she's with you, she has a reasonable expectation of privacy in those settings (Ie. that what she does in that setting will not be made public). That expectation of privacy is voided if she consents to the photos being taken though.

PaulConventionWV
10-06-2013, 07:47 PM
The litmus test is whether that woman has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the situation. You can't take pictures of your naked girlfriend without her knowledge or consent in private places because even if she's with you, she has a reasonable expectation of privacy in those settings (Ie. that what she does in that setting will not be made public). That expectation of privacy is voided if she consents to the photos being taken though.

Correct.

PaulConventionWV
10-06-2013, 07:48 PM
Remind me never to use the bathroom or a dressing room at your store.

Why not? You carry the same risk doing it at my store as you would at any other store. If you're afraid that the owner of the whole freaking company is going to come in to the store just to peep at girls in the dressing rooms, then you can rest easy because I'm pretty sure any company that allowed that to happen has long since gone out of business.

MelissaWV
10-06-2013, 07:52 PM
Why not? You carry the same risk doing it at my store as you would at any other store. If you're afraid that the owner of the whole freaking company is going to come in to the store just to peep at girls in the dressing rooms, then you can rest easy because I'm pretty sure any company that allowed that to happen has long since gone out of business.

You said that if it's his property, though, he's within his rights to do that in an ideal world. It's unjust that he'd be prosecuted for taking pictures in the dressing room. If they didn't want to be photographed, they would not remove their clothing. Same at any of those other examples.

The irony in this is that your previous post agrees with someone pointing out the exact same thing : it doesn't matter who owns the property... it matters whether or not there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

PaulConventionWV
10-06-2013, 08:15 PM
You said that if it's his property, though, he's within his rights to do that in an ideal world. It's unjust that he'd be prosecuted for taking pictures in the dressing room. If they didn't want to be photographed, they would not remove their clothing. Same at any of those other examples.

The irony in this is that your previous post agrees with someone pointing out the exact same thing : it doesn't matter who owns the property... it matters whether or not there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

That's true. It matters if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and I think there is in this case because the owner of the store is not going to do that. That's just absurd. And if he does, then you'll have the pleasure of seeing his business go down in flames.

Also, who owns the property also matters. In fact, it's everything. If you have the right to shoot someone who trespasses on your property, then what can't you do with your own property? I make no distinction between someone's home and someone's business. It's tyranny to try to make private businesses into public space just because the public is allowed in there.

Bohner
10-06-2013, 11:14 PM
That's true. It matters if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and I think there is in this case because the owner of the store is not going to do that. That's just absurd. And if he does, then you'll have the pleasure of seeing his business go down in flames.

Also, who owns the property also matters. In fact, it's everything. If you have the right to shoot someone who trespasses on your property, then what can't you do with your own property? I make no distinction between someone's home and someone's business. It's tyranny to try to make private businesses into public space just because the public is allowed in there.

A reasonable expectation to privacy has nothing to do with whether someone is or isn't going to do something. It has to do with whether someone is ALLOWED to do it. For example, you can't set up a pee cam in the women's bathroom in a business that you own, even though it's your property. That's because it's a reasonable expectation for any woman using the bathroom that her peeing into the toilet is not going to be recorded. Same thing with putting hidden cameras in changing rooms or even your bedroom. You can't record people in private settings where there is a reasonable belief that their actions are not going to be made public without their consent.

aGameOfThrones
03-20-2014, 11:04 AM
Now Puerto Rico wants to do this. Oh yeah, it has been all over the local news that someone posted a video of 2 cops in uniform having sex and so we should pass the law.

Philhelm
03-20-2014, 11:48 AM
You said that if it's his property, though, he's within his rights to do that in an ideal world. It's unjust that he'd be prosecuted for taking pictures in the dressing room. If they didn't want to be photographed, they would not remove their clothing. Same at any of those other examples.

The irony in this is that your previous post agrees with someone pointing out the exact same thing : it doesn't matter who owns the property... it matters whether or not there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

But women do not possess souls; therefore, it would be like arguing whether a rat or snake have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

John F Kennedy III
03-20-2014, 11:49 AM
Emotional stress and humiliation?

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT BE UNCOMFORTABLE.