4 ms·

Photos. As in pictures. Physical copies. Your eyes dont have a log function. You can look at your partner during sex for certain, but secretly filming them and

by cf498 8y ago

Photos. As in pictures. Physical copies. Your eyes dont have a log function. You can look at your partner during sex for certain, but secretly filming them and sharing the pictures is clearly wrong.

jMyles 8y ago
I suspect you are a troll. Of course my eyes have a log function. It's called my brain. And how that's relevant to the simple physical discussion of your claim to ownership of all particles with which you've ever come into contact is beyond me.
- cf498 8y ago
  I would normally not repsond that long, but your account is old enough to not be a troll. Do you really mean what you say here? I am talking about it being morally wrong to make pictures of you to share with someone else if you do not consent. You brain does not have a print function. Is this a misunderstanding because you still havent realized that I am not talking about photons but photos?
  - jMyles 8y ago
    No. I have to believe that you are being intentionally obtuse. You are essentially taking the position that anywhere you go, I am suddenly not permitted to photograph that place without your specific consent. This is the obvious position of tyrants. Its what every corrupt or brutal police officer says to us when we use cameras for defense. Then, you are taking the position that somehow, your position is actually a bulwark against dystopia. I don't make a distinction, for the purposes of my basic, fundamental human rights (such as to the fruits of my vision, including journalism) between photons and photos. I am unable to understand any consistent way to apply your position that doesn't include a claim that the literal, physical particles that bounce off or you and into my sensor are somehow your property. This is just an absurd position on its face. I don't know why I'm still arguing with you. Fortunately, we live in a physical world and you are unable to interrupt the basic principles of physical reality, including the fact that photos come into my position regardless of your "consent". Thus, I'll just take your photo, I won't ask consent, and we'll all live with that.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    > You[r] brain does not have a print function. If you've been trained to draw or paint, it certainly does. So is it morally wrong to draw or paint without consent? I do tend to agree with you, if we're talking about surveillance of the weak in the panopticon. But if we're talking about surveillance of the powerful, in the course of protecting human rights generally, I'd say that anything goes.
ComputerGuru 8y ago
> Photos. As in pictures. Physical copies I know where you are coming from and what point you are trying to make, but to play devil’s advocate this analogy does not age gracefully in the digital age. Obvious counter: what about digital photos? They don’t “exist” physically, as they are only a particular arrangement of existing electrons coaxed into a particular low-entropy state. But to take it further in a less witty fashion, it seems that in the space of a very few short years sexting has gone from “edge” to “mainstream” and people you are “authorized” to “see” IRL are now people that willingly send you digital photos of themselves in compromising outfits or various states of undress. This time they are not giving you photons but digital files, probably with the intention of them “expiring” within the near future (when the snap/what-have-you expires) or with the presumption that they either magically disappear when the sexual relationship comes to an end or with the presumption that the relationship will last forever. What then?
- cf498 8y ago
  We dont really make that distinction with copy righted material either. Digital copies are still no more permitted then copied books.
- cf498 8y ago
  I didnt think I would comment on the second part, but it is really bugging me. Sorry for the double post. Distributing sexted images that were meant for you is something I would consider to be wrong. Do you disagree with that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge_porn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge_porn It seems to be also illegal in the US? Is there an assumption of consent for replication given during the transmitting in your cultural sphere? I never assumed there was that big of a difference in something I consider one of the most basic degrees of morality. Not just as a society, but also as the names states "hackers". In Germany we have the CCC, the chaos communication club (you might know the chaos communication congress). Their mission statement is the hacker ethic https://www.ccc.de/en/hackerethik https://www.ccc.de/en/hackerethik >Make public data available, protect private data. >To protect the privacy of the individual and to strengthen the freedom of the information which concern the public the yet last point was added. It was best summarized by one of the CCC speakers on the topic of "Celebgate". It was across the lines of "ofcourse you can look at it, but then you're just an asshole" Intimate pictures of another person are private data and should only be accessible to people the person consented to. edit: Ok the definition on wikipedia actually differs with the translation >The term is also often misused to describe non 'revenge' scenarios, including nonconsensual pornography distributed by hackers or by individuals seeking profit or notoriety. Well thats dark > German High Court made a May 2014 ruling that intimate photographs of partners should be deleted if the partner so requests.[112]

by cf498 8y ago

Photos. As in pictures. Physical copies. Your eyes dont have a log function. You can look at your partner during sex for certain, but secretly filming them and sharing the pictures is clearly wrong.

jMyles 8y ago

I suspect you are a troll. Of course my eyes have a log function. It's called my brain. And how that's relevant to the simple physical discussion of your claim to ownership of all particles with which you've ever come into contact is beyond me.

cf498 8y ago
I would normally not repsond that long, but your account is old enough to not be a troll. Do you really mean what you say here? I am talking about it being morally wrong to make pictures of you to share with someone else if you do not consent. You brain does not have a print function. Is this a misunderstanding because you still havent realized that I am not talking about photons but photos?
- jMyles 8y ago
  No. I have to believe that you are being intentionally obtuse. You are essentially taking the position that anywhere you go, I am suddenly not permitted to photograph that place without your specific consent. This is the obvious position of tyrants. Its what every corrupt or brutal police officer says to us when we use cameras for defense. Then, you are taking the position that somehow, your position is actually a bulwark against dystopia. I don't make a distinction, for the purposes of my basic, fundamental human rights (such as to the fruits of my vision, including journalism) between photons and photos. I am unable to understand any consistent way to apply your position that doesn't include a claim that the literal, physical particles that bounce off or you and into my sensor are somehow your property. This is just an absurd position on its face. I don't know why I'm still arguing with you. Fortunately, we live in a physical world and you are unable to interrupt the basic principles of physical reality, including the fact that photos come into my position regardless of your "consent". Thus, I'll just take your photo, I won't ask consent, and we'll all live with that.
- mirimir 8y ago
  > You[r] brain does not have a print function. If you've been trained to draw or paint, it certainly does. So is it morally wrong to draw or paint without consent? I do tend to agree with you, if we're talking about surveillance of the weak in the panopticon. But if we're talking about surveillance of the powerful, in the course of protecting human rights generally, I'd say that anything goes.

ComputerGuru 8y ago

> Photos. As in pictures. Physical copies I know where you are coming from and what point you are trying to make, but to play devil’s advocate this analogy does not age gracefully in the digital age. Obvious counter: what about digital photos? They don’t “exist” physically, as they are only a particular arrangement of existing electrons coaxed into a particular low-entropy state. But to take it further in a less witty fashion, it seems that in the space of a very few short years sexting has gone from “edge” to “mainstream” and people you are “authorized” to “see” IRL are now people that willingly send you digital photos of themselves in compromising outfits or various states of undress. This time they are not giving you photons but digital files, probably with the intention of them “expiring” within the near future (when the snap/what-have-you expires) or with the presumption that they either magically disappear when the sexual relationship comes to an end or with the presumption that the relationship will last forever. What then?

cf498 8y ago
We dont really make that distinction with copy righted material either. Digital copies are still no more permitted then copied books.
cf498 8y ago
I didnt think I would comment on the second part, but it is really bugging me. Sorry for the double post. Distributing sexted images that were meant for you is something I would consider to be wrong. Do you disagree with that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge_porn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge_porn It seems to be also illegal in the US? Is there an assumption of consent for replication given during the transmitting in your cultural sphere? I never assumed there was that big of a difference in something I consider one of the most basic degrees of morality. Not just as a society, but also as the names states "hackers". In Germany we have the CCC, the chaos communication club (you might know the chaos communication congress). Their mission statement is the hacker ethic https://www.ccc.de/en/hackerethik https://www.ccc.de/en/hackerethik >Make public data available, protect private data. >To protect the privacy of the individual and to strengthen the freedom of the information which concern the public the yet last point was added. It was best summarized by one of the CCC speakers on the topic of "Celebgate". It was across the lines of "ofcourse you can look at it, but then you're just an asshole" Intimate pictures of another person are private data and should only be accessible to people the person consented to. edit: Ok the definition on wikipedia actually differs with the translation >The term is also often misused to describe non 'revenge' scenarios, including nonconsensual pornography distributed by hackers or by individuals seeking profit or notoriety. Well thats dark > German High Court made a May 2014 ruling that intimate photographs of partners should be deleted if the partner so requests.[112]