4 ms·

Publishing private information of other people, not just those who "traffic in those photos", is forbidden because it the past it has led to real-life harassmen

Publishing private information of other people, not just those who "traffic in those photos", is forbidden because it the past it has led to real-life harassment. It's a pretty old and established rule.

tptacek 14y ago
You understand that bystanders like me puzzling their way through what's happening with Reddit and this "stand" that they're taking see surreptitiously taken photos of minors posted for the amusement of a creepy Reddit thread to also be private information about other people, right? Do you just disagree that they're the same kind of information? Is that where the controversy is here?
- spindritf 14y ago
  The controversy is not just around photos of minors, there's gore on reddit, too. It really is about distasteful content in general and not just one particular instance of it. And yes, I do think that information inciting or enabling real-life harassment is different from just a photo taken in public without the accompanying additional info.
  - arthur_debert 14y ago
    People have been able to track people and locations surprisingly little information. What if those photos do leak information that could enable real-life harassement (like EXIF metadata, street sign, etc) . Can we trust the submitter to guarantee it never will? If it happens, who's to blame?
    - spindritf 14y ago
      > What if those photos do leak information that could enable real-life harassement Then they should be removed. Imgur (Reddit's favourite image hosting) already strips meta data.
      - arthur_debert 14y ago
        EXIF metadata is easy to automate. What if there is a logo of a local business reflected on a surface that most people barely notice. Someone recognizes this, tracks the person down. It's a bit over the top, but these things happen. If that exposes one of those underage girls, who is accountable? Leaking real world information can be done in many and subtle ways. There are times where people think the image origin is untraceable, but it isn't. Will reddit take the heat? The poster? The mod?
        sentenza 14y ago
        It's worse than that. Facebook already does face recognition, Google supposedly could too. If there's a face in that image, then there is the identity of a person in that image.
    - danielweber 14y ago
      "No one could possibly monitor that" is the same argument the pro-creepshot people use to explain why you can't ban pictures of children or candid pictures. Apparently because they think the only way to solve that is to hire a PI to painstakingly investigate each and every submission. Those are both nuts. You handle the issue the way adults handle the issue: 1. Say "you can't post X." 2. Count on the fact that most people won't post X once you tell them not to (on pains of account sanction, which are already in place for rules against things like spam). 3. Deal with the complains of false positives and false negatives on a case-by-case basis.
- aes256 14y ago
  > [...] surreptitiously taken photos of minors posted for the amusement of a creepy Reddit thread to also be private information about other people, right? Taking a photo of someone in public and sharing it online does not constitute a breach of privacy. You do not have any expectation of privacy when you step out in public.
- danielweber 14y ago
  There was a rule for doxxing: it was something like "personally identifying information about a person who didn't want that information revealed." And creepshots largely didn't meet the definition of that rule, because no one knew who the people in the pictures were. Now, you can certainly wish the rule were something that would have blocked creepshots and doxxing. Like "information about anyone that they don't want a bunch of strangers on the Internet reading." Reddit has tried to turn over the decisions about what to allow to a rule-based system instead of having to have any human discretion involved. I can see the appeal in wanting that (any google search for "technical solution for social problem" will describe why people keep on trying it), but it leads to things that obviously look absolutely crazy to outsiders. Reddit probably needs to grow up and have some human discretion involved. It is going to collapse under its own weight without that.
bishnu 14y ago
Publishing covert photos of teenage girls on the internet has also led to real-life harassment. What's your point?
- spindritf 14y ago
  I plead ignorance — I don't follow those reddits, or even the main ones, and so never heard of such an incidence, a link would be appreciated.
  - bryanlarsen 14y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd
    - danielweber 14y ago
      While a horrible situation, I don't think her flashing herself to someone over a webcam counts as "covert." (I shouldn't have to say this, but I'm obviously not saying that there shouldn't be social and legal consequences for the people who kept on posting her overt topless photos. Why aren't those draconian sexting laws we hear in other places being applied to them?)

tptacek 14y ago

You understand that bystanders like me puzzling their way through what's happening with Reddit and this "stand" that they're taking see surreptitiously taken photos of minors posted for the amusement of a creepy Reddit thread to also be private information about other people, right? Do you just disagree that they're the same kind of information? Is that where the controversy is here?

spindritf 14y ago
The controversy is not just around photos of minors, there's gore on reddit, too. It really is about distasteful content in general and not just one particular instance of it. And yes, I do think that information inciting or enabling real-life harassment is different from just a photo taken in public without the accompanying additional info.
- arthur_debert 14y ago
  People have been able to track people and locations surprisingly little information. What if those photos do leak information that could enable real-life harassement (like EXIF metadata, street sign, etc) . Can we trust the submitter to guarantee it never will? If it happens, who's to blame?
  - spindritf 14y ago
    > What if those photos do leak information that could enable real-life harassement Then they should be removed. Imgur (Reddit's favourite image hosting) already strips meta data.
    - arthur_debert 14y ago
      EXIF metadata is easy to automate. What if there is a logo of a local business reflected on a surface that most people barely notice. Someone recognizes this, tracks the person down. It's a bit over the top, but these things happen. If that exposes one of those underage girls, who is accountable? Leaking real world information can be done in many and subtle ways. There are times where people think the image origin is untraceable, but it isn't. Will reddit take the heat? The poster? The mod?
      - sentenza 14y ago
        It's worse than that. Facebook already does face recognition, Google supposedly could too. If there's a face in that image, then there is the identity of a person in that image.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    "No one could possibly monitor that" is the same argument the pro-creepshot people use to explain why you can't ban pictures of children or candid pictures. Apparently because they think the only way to solve that is to hire a PI to painstakingly investigate each and every submission. Those are both nuts. You handle the issue the way adults handle the issue: 1. Say "you can't post X." 2. Count on the fact that most people won't post X once you tell them not to (on pains of account sanction, which are already in place for rules against things like spam). 3. Deal with the complains of false positives and false negatives on a case-by-case basis.
aes256 14y ago
> [...] surreptitiously taken photos of minors posted for the amusement of a creepy Reddit thread to also be private information about other people, right? Taking a photo of someone in public and sharing it online does not constitute a breach of privacy. You do not have any expectation of privacy when you step out in public.
danielweber 14y ago
There was a rule for doxxing: it was something like "personally identifying information about a person who didn't want that information revealed." And creepshots largely didn't meet the definition of that rule, because no one knew who the people in the pictures were. Now, you can certainly wish the rule were something that would have blocked creepshots and doxxing. Like "information about anyone that they don't want a bunch of strangers on the Internet reading." Reddit has tried to turn over the decisions about what to allow to a rule-based system instead of having to have any human discretion involved. I can see the appeal in wanting that (any google search for "technical solution for social problem" will describe why people keep on trying it), but it leads to things that obviously look absolutely crazy to outsiders. Reddit probably needs to grow up and have some human discretion involved. It is going to collapse under its own weight without that.

bishnu 14y ago

Publishing covert photos of teenage girls on the internet has also led to real-life harassment. What's your point?

spindritf 14y ago
I plead ignorance — I don't follow those reddits, or even the main ones, and so never heard of such an incidence, a link would be appreciated.
- bryanlarsen 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd
  - danielweber 14y ago
    While a horrible situation, I don't think her flashing herself to someone over a webcam counts as "covert." (I shouldn't have to say this, but I'm obviously not saying that there shouldn't be social and legal consequences for the people who kept on posting her overt topless photos. Why aren't those draconian sexting laws we hear in other places being applied to them?)