3 ms·

I guess better copyright enforcement may help. They should also read about deepfakes and stop thinking that filming once body itself is already a serious crime.

by meshr 8y ago

I guess better copyright enforcement may help. They should also read about deepfakes and stop thinking that filming once body itself is already a serious crime. It matters how that info is used. Homosapien personality is not his body but his brain. PS: Ironically another news on that page says “Women stage topless protest over Facebook ‘discrimination’ Did police arrest everyone who filmed this? Did police arrest these women for five years in prison for using their body as a weapon? Is it ok for the same woman to appear in both these news?

tdb7893 8y ago
There's a difference between a public display and a private display that seems pretty clear so these aren't the same thing.
- meshr 8y ago
  But it is “virtual” projection of the same info (body). There is a difference in the history of the picture shooting but the picture is the same and may falsely say was it shot in public or in private with the help of photoshop. So the same picture may be the serious crime or profitable shot for newspaper depending on unclear history or how good you can fake it or what body owner says. You can’t make something a serious crime if it could be faked.
  - tdb7893 8y ago
    The justice system is designed to handle these ambiguities, it's literally the job of the system to gather the facts and experts and make a decision. If it gets to the point where you can't tell at all out seems like you would just need a new law that requires you to prove it was in public or get consent (which you should get anyway, even in public). Proving it was in public would be trivial for the case of something like a protest (lots of eye witnesses and security cameras). I guess I'm not seeing the scenario where it will ever be that unsolvable of a problem in society.
    - meshr 8y ago
      You may find surprising how the system may demand 9 years of prison for a father who made shots of his weakly child here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yury_A._Dmitriev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yury_A._Dmitriev BTW He is in prison for about 2 years now. You shouldn’t demand the system to protect your privacy because you will pay for it with your money and freedom. You can protect privacy yourself if you will. I gave some examples above when it can happen by accident/stupidity.
UntitledNo4 8y ago
"stop thinking that filming once body is serious crime." Firstly, the article is not talking about taking pictures of women on the street but rather in changing rooms and locker rooms, which is a crime. Second, even if you would be comfortable if someone took a picture of you naked without your knowledge and posted it online doesn't mean that other women and men are. "Is it ok for the same woman to appear in both these news?" Yes. It was her decision to pose topless in public, and it doesn't give anyone the right to spy on her in privacy and take pictures of her.
- meshr 8y ago
  > changing rooms and locker rooms But it is kind of public place too. What if you open it by mistake with google glass on? 5 years in prison? What if another woman there receives video call? 5 years in prison? What if some stupid child does it? What if hackers or sneaky woman intentionally put such shots on your phone and call police? >if someone took a picture of you I’m not comfortable with it too. But I don’t think it is more criminal than piracy. I don’t want that police restrict cameras anyway because of it. I want the police to protect copyright better >It was her decision to pose topless in public So the subject for protection is not her body itself but her power to define how to “sell” it? Isn’t it prostitution? They should make prostitution legal first then.
  - codedokode 8y ago
    Let's say that you work for the government and accidentally read top secret documents with your Google Glass on and accidentally upload the recording to Youtube. Would it be a good excuse? And of course other people's privacy is much more important than those documents that are boring and uninteresting to 99% of people. So of course the use of cameras should be regulated.
    - meshr 8y ago
      I can’t accidentally read top secret because it is secured much better than public places. I can’t disclose it by mistake. Its guards don’t expose it when they want to protest. People privacy can’t be more important than government documents, because protecting each citizen is much more complex/pricy task than protecting those documents. Disclosing those documents is a problem for all citizens. Disclosing citizen privacy is a problem for him. You can’t restrict good willing citizen rights because of bad guys.
somebadguy 8y ago
Wow what the fuck is wrong with you? Fucking incels - infesting society like vermin.
pjc50 8y ago
The important issue is consent.

by meshr 8y ago

tdb7893 8y ago

There's a difference between a public display and a private display that seems pretty clear so these aren't the same thing.

meshr 8y ago
But it is “virtual” projection of the same info (body). There is a difference in the history of the picture shooting but the picture is the same and may falsely say was it shot in public or in private with the help of photoshop. So the same picture may be the serious crime or profitable shot for newspaper depending on unclear history or how good you can fake it or what body owner says. You can’t make something a serious crime if it could be faked.
- tdb7893 8y ago
  The justice system is designed to handle these ambiguities, it's literally the job of the system to gather the facts and experts and make a decision. If it gets to the point where you can't tell at all out seems like you would just need a new law that requires you to prove it was in public or get consent (which you should get anyway, even in public). Proving it was in public would be trivial for the case of something like a protest (lots of eye witnesses and security cameras). I guess I'm not seeing the scenario where it will ever be that unsolvable of a problem in society.
  - meshr 8y ago
    You may find surprising how the system may demand 9 years of prison for a father who made shots of his weakly child here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yury_A._Dmitriev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yury_A._Dmitriev BTW He is in prison for about 2 years now. You shouldn’t demand the system to protect your privacy because you will pay for it with your money and freedom. You can protect privacy yourself if you will. I gave some examples above when it can happen by accident/stupidity.

UntitledNo4 8y ago

"stop thinking that filming once body is serious crime." Firstly, the article is not talking about taking pictures of women on the street but rather in changing rooms and locker rooms, which is a crime. Second, even if you would be comfortable if someone took a picture of you naked without your knowledge and posted it online doesn't mean that other women and men are. "Is it ok for the same woman to appear in both these news?" Yes. It was her decision to pose topless in public, and it doesn't give anyone the right to spy on her in privacy and take pictures of her.

meshr 8y ago
> changing rooms and locker rooms But it is kind of public place too. What if you open it by mistake with google glass on? 5 years in prison? What if another woman there receives video call? 5 years in prison? What if some stupid child does it? What if hackers or sneaky woman intentionally put such shots on your phone and call police? >if someone took a picture of you I’m not comfortable with it too. But I don’t think it is more criminal than piracy. I don’t want that police restrict cameras anyway because of it. I want the police to protect copyright better >It was her decision to pose topless in public So the subject for protection is not her body itself but her power to define how to “sell” it? Isn’t it prostitution? They should make prostitution legal first then.
- codedokode 8y ago
  Let's say that you work for the government and accidentally read top secret documents with your Google Glass on and accidentally upload the recording to Youtube. Would it be a good excuse? And of course other people's privacy is much more important than those documents that are boring and uninteresting to 99% of people. So of course the use of cameras should be regulated.
  - meshr 8y ago
    I can’t accidentally read top secret because it is secured much better than public places. I can’t disclose it by mistake. Its guards don’t expose it when they want to protest. People privacy can’t be more important than government documents, because protecting each citizen is much more complex/pricy task than protecting those documents. Disclosing those documents is a problem for all citizens. Disclosing citizen privacy is a problem for him. You can’t restrict good willing citizen rights because of bad guys.

somebadguy 8y ago

Wow what the fuck is wrong with you? Fucking incels - infesting society like vermin.

pjc50 8y ago

The important issue is consent.