3 ms·

How to Unmask the Internet's Vilest Characters

21 points by robg 16y ago

tobylane 16y ago
I think that's a bad example. What basically happened is that an odd ex-boyfriend passed around pictures, and one of those people put it on the internet and tried to blackmail her. It's not too different to the whole myexbitch thing. The real internet villains are the ones who need no provocation, and go after people far innocenter than people who let their boyfriend take nude pictures. Like what Anon did with the Sony exec families, that (didn't by far) could have gone horribly wrong if a internet-only psycho got enough of that information.
- jaysonelliot 16y ago
  I wouldn't call someone who is abusive in a relationship, and manipulates someone into taking naked photos, then hands them out to his friends, "odd." I'd call him a world-class scumbag. The people who went on to post the photos and her personal info are equally vile. I can think of no excuse for that behavior at all. You're blaming the victim here, and it's wrong. This woman was manipulated and exploited, and she is absolutely innocent in this sad tale.
  - tobylane 16y ago
    It's considerably more passive to leak photos compared to finding out where someone's kids go to school.
- wheaties 16y ago
  It's a great example by far. You don't want even a hint of the Barbara Striesand effect if you're suing someone over something which is deeply and personally embarrassing. Besides, just because someone let someone else get a hold of personal or confidential information does not give them the right to share it with the world.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
Natsu 16y ago
EDIT: Somehow I missed that they did do some of these things, but still, they shouldn't have mentioned the site. There are plenty of things that could be done that don't require the removing the CDA. If websites are liable for user-generated content, then liability will ensure that we cannot have user-generated content at all. Google, for example, has a specific process for you to remove this sort of thing: http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=164734 http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&... More generally, you can also get a court order declaring something unlawful, then go here: http://www.google.com/support/bin/request.py?contact_type=lr_courtorder&product=websearch http://www.google.com/support/bin/request.py?contact_type=lr... But as they point out, it doesn't do much unless you get to the root of the problem. Find the person who posted it. Lastly, way to go NYTimes. I had never heard of that porn site before, but now everyone on the internet can look up that site and that post, making your use of an alias meaningless. Are you really on her side, or were you trying to trigger the Streisand effect?
- sabraham 16y ago
  The article said Private Voyeur removed the post. It's not in an easily accessible cache--a quick Google and archive.org search doesn't turn up anything--so naming the site, albeit unnecessary, probably didn't jeopardize anonymity.

21 points by robg 16y ago

I think that's a bad example. What basically happened is that an odd ex-boyfriend passed around pictures, and one of those people put it on the internet and tried to blackmail her. It's not too different to the whole myexbitch thing. The real internet villains are the ones who need no provocation, and go after people far innocenter than people who let their boyfriend take nude pictures. Like what Anon did with the Sony exec families, that (didn't by far) could have gone horribly wrong if a internet-only psycho got enough of that information.

jaysonelliot 16y ago
I wouldn't call someone who is abusive in a relationship, and manipulates someone into taking naked photos, then hands them out to his friends, "odd." I'd call him a world-class scumbag. The people who went on to post the photos and her personal info are equally vile. I can think of no excuse for that behavior at all. You're blaming the victim here, and it's wrong. This woman was manipulated and exploited, and she is absolutely innocent in this sad tale.
- tobylane 16y ago
  It's considerably more passive to leak photos compared to finding out where someone's kids go to school.
wheaties 16y ago
It's a great example by far. You don't want even a hint of the Barbara Striesand effect if you're suing someone over something which is deeply and personally embarrassing. Besides, just because someone let someone else get a hold of personal or confidential information does not give them the right to share it with the world.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

Natsu 16y ago

EDIT: Somehow I missed that they did do some of these things, but still, they shouldn't have mentioned the site. There are plenty of things that could be done that don't require the removing the CDA. If websites are liable for user-generated content, then liability will ensure that we cannot have user-generated content at all. Google, for example, has a specific process for you to remove this sort of thing: http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=164734 http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&... More generally, you can also get a court order declaring something unlawful, then go here: http://www.google.com/support/bin/request.py?contact_type=lr_courtorder&product=websearch http://www.google.com/support/bin/request.py?contact_type=lr... But as they point out, it doesn't do much unless you get to the root of the problem. Find the person who posted it. Lastly, way to go NYTimes. I had never heard of that porn site before, but now everyone on the internet can look up that site and that post, making your use of an alias meaningless. Are you really on her side, or were you trying to trigger the Streisand effect?

sabraham 16y ago
The article said Private Voyeur removed the post. It's not in an easily accessible cache--a quick Google and archive.org search doesn't turn up anything--so naming the site, albeit unnecessary, probably didn't jeopardize anonymity.