5 ms·

There are a few things wrong with your line of thinking: * Reddit is not the government, so yes, we cannot have them arrested. And no one wants them arrested-

There are a few things wrong with your line of thinking: * Reddit is not the government, so yes, we cannot have them arrested. And no one wants them arrested- literally zero people. But yes, they can be held financially responsible and be made into the pariah of the civilized world. * Even barring that, your freedom of speech only extends so far until it begins harming the safety of others. Creepshots, specifically, was showing easily identifiable women in compromising positions and actively encouraging that subreddit's community to create more of this kind of content. Without the knowledge of their victims, they trample over their right to a reasonable expectation of safety and privacy. I've been a member of Reddit for 6 years- just 1 year shy of their entire existence. It's still, by far, my most visited site every day. My favorite subreddits all tend to be niche these days, like /r/ainbow, /r/python, and /r/kpop. Most of the 'defaults' I'm not even subscribed to, because of a way of thinking that honestly reeks of people who have never been under legitimate threat in their lives, yet feel entitled to expose others to it. Well, that and crappy reposts. Once again: No one wants Reddit arrested. That's what the freedom of speech is about. However, the freedom of speech does not, by any measure, mean that you should not be exposed to the consequences of your speech. You should.

manys 14y ago
There is no "right to a reasonable expectation of safety and privacy," in public, though.
- deong 14y ago
  That's a pretty dramatic overstatement in the context of this discussion. There's no "reasonable expectation" of privacy in the sense of preventing people from seeing you and monitoring your publicly visible travels. That word "reasonable" is important. You do have a reasonable expectation that there won't be peephole cameras in dressing rooms and hidden mirrors on the floor everywhere you turn. And safety is also a bit odd to bring up here. There certainly is a reasonable expectation of safety in public in the legal sense. In what situation is there ever a lack of the expectation of safety to such a degree that it could be used as a defense by someone harming you?
  - Silhouette 14y ago
    In the modern world, I think it's reasonable to ask whether monitoring of people's behaviour even in public is still acceptable. If I followed you around and discreetly recorded everything I saw during a shopping trip and when you got home, there's a good chance that I could do all kinds of damaging things to you with the information I collected. I could be unpleasant (spoiling your kid's birthday surprise). I could be very unpleasant (spoiling your surprise proposal to your financee because I just watched you collect the ring). I could be downright criminal (identity theft, fraud, and the like). I think many of us would consider that sort of "tailing someone" behaviour to be more than a little creepy, but it's important to understand there are good practical reasons for that instinctive negative reaction beyond just "I don't find it comfortable" (though the latter is important as well). Modern technology allow us to do many wonderful things that we couldn't before, but also quite a few nasty things that we couldn't do before or that didn't have such serious consequences before. It's about time we stopped trying to apply privacy from 1912 to the world in 2012, and started asking why the principle of privacy is important and what it really means today.
    - deong 14y ago
      That's a fair point, but I'm not sure where I'd draw the line. The worst consequences you cited -- identity theft, fraud, etc. -- are already illegal. We criminalize the act; not necessarily the surrounding things that made the act possible. Spoiling my kid's birthday surprise might make you a dick, but I don't want it to make you a criminal. It's also hard to see a good way to enforce this kind of thing. As long as all a person is doing is visiting public places, then lacking a specific compelling reason (e.g., restraining orders issued by a judge), I'm not sure you should be able to prevent someone else from visiting those same public places. These are definitely issues that are going to become more important as the amount of data we generate continues to grow. But right now, I think the balance is actually pretty good. The government probably has too many rights to collect information on you, but for private parties, I don't have a huge problem with things as they stand.
      - Silhouette 14y ago
tallanvor 14y ago
It's all relative, isn't it? Let's be honest, there are people who consider r/ainbow to be more objectionable than r/creepshots. It's sad but true.
- sadface 14y ago
  I think there's a reasonably clear difference between a forum dedicated to sharing sexual content defined by the subject's lack of consent and pretty much any other forum discussing potentially "offensive" material.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    And taking someone's picture is far less offensive than murder, which a large part of the population believes includes abortion. Should Reddit ban abortion resources?

manys 14y ago

There is no "right to a reasonable expectation of safety and privacy," in public, though.

deong 14y ago
That's a pretty dramatic overstatement in the context of this discussion. There's no "reasonable expectation" of privacy in the sense of preventing people from seeing you and monitoring your publicly visible travels. That word "reasonable" is important. You do have a reasonable expectation that there won't be peephole cameras in dressing rooms and hidden mirrors on the floor everywhere you turn. And safety is also a bit odd to bring up here. There certainly is a reasonable expectation of safety in public in the legal sense. In what situation is there ever a lack of the expectation of safety to such a degree that it could be used as a defense by someone harming you?
- Silhouette 14y ago
  In the modern world, I think it's reasonable to ask whether monitoring of people's behaviour even in public is still acceptable. If I followed you around and discreetly recorded everything I saw during a shopping trip and when you got home, there's a good chance that I could do all kinds of damaging things to you with the information I collected. I could be unpleasant (spoiling your kid's birthday surprise). I could be very unpleasant (spoiling your surprise proposal to your financee because I just watched you collect the ring). I could be downright criminal (identity theft, fraud, and the like). I think many of us would consider that sort of "tailing someone" behaviour to be more than a little creepy, but it's important to understand there are good practical reasons for that instinctive negative reaction beyond just "I don't find it comfortable" (though the latter is important as well). Modern technology allow us to do many wonderful things that we couldn't before, but also quite a few nasty things that we couldn't do before or that didn't have such serious consequences before. It's about time we stopped trying to apply privacy from 1912 to the world in 2012, and started asking why the principle of privacy is important and what it really means today.
  - deong 14y ago
    That's a fair point, but I'm not sure where I'd draw the line. The worst consequences you cited -- identity theft, fraud, etc. -- are already illegal. We criminalize the act; not necessarily the surrounding things that made the act possible. Spoiling my kid's birthday surprise might make you a dick, but I don't want it to make you a criminal. It's also hard to see a good way to enforce this kind of thing. As long as all a person is doing is visiting public places, then lacking a specific compelling reason (e.g., restraining orders issued by a judge), I'm not sure you should be able to prevent someone else from visiting those same public places. These are definitely issues that are going to become more important as the amount of data we generate continues to grow. But right now, I think the balance is actually pretty good. The government probably has too many rights to collect information on you, but for private parties, I don't have a huge problem with things as they stand.
    - Silhouette 14y ago

tallanvor 14y ago

It's all relative, isn't it? Let's be honest, there are people who consider r/ainbow to be more objectionable than r/creepshots. It's sad but true.

sadface 14y ago
I think there's a reasonably clear difference between a forum dedicated to sharing sexual content defined by the subject's lack of consent and pretty much any other forum discussing potentially "offensive" material.
- Evbn 14y ago
  And taking someone's picture is far less offensive than murder, which a large part of the population believes includes abortion. Should Reddit ban abortion resources?