6 ms·

Being A Victim Of Revenge Porn Forced Me To Change My Name

58 points by BrandonMarc 13y ago

droopyEyelids 13y ago
Man it's a horrible issue here. I'm glad they're making progress but worried about adding some more 1st amendment exemptions. I can imagine this turning into a tool the powerful use to suppress "damaging information" or something along those lines. Maybe so long as it stays restricted to uncensored pictures of nudity things will go well.
- mathgladiator 13y ago
  I don't think this is a 1st amendment exception at all; I'm surprised laws around likeness rights (or even copyright) are not at play here.
  - andrewfong 13y ago
    Copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject. So if the ex took the photo, the victim is out of luck. Likeness rights are a bit weird and vary by state, but generally, they only apply to using a person's likeness to advertise or imply an endorsement of some product or service. That said, there are more privacy-centric laws in various states that might apply here. But those laws don't really draw clear lines in the way that likeness or copyright laws would. Instead, these privacy laws usually turn on whether the information being disclosed is "newsworthy" -- not exactly a very objective standard.
    - crag 13y ago
      "Copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject. So if the ex took the photo, the victim is out of luck." Only if the subject gave permission (usually by signing a document) to the photographer. This is a very different situation. A jealous ex posting pictures he took of them all over the net. This girl had the right to expect those pictures to remain private. If he broke the law is debatable. But there's no denying her ex is a first class punk.
      - andrewfong 13y ago
        > Only if the subject gave permission (usually by signing a document) to the photographer. Permission from the subject is not required under U.S. copyright law. Unless there's some other agreement in place, it belongs to the photographer. From http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html: """The owner of the “work” is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph.""" Permission may matter for likeness rights, but as I mentioned earlier, that generally only applies in the context of advertising or implied endorsement. > But there's no denying her ex is a first class punk. Agreed, but it doesn't change the copyright analysis.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  Yes, I wrote about this the last time this topic came up here. There is another guy who's life was destroyed by revenge porn, specifically the public sharing of private selfies. Even 2 years after the incident, Carlos Danger (Anthony Wiener) is still being rejected from jobs (by voters) as a result of his actions. http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/defending_hunter_moore.html http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/defending_hunter_moor... I don't see a reasonable way to shut down revenge porn - it's pretty clearly journalism, and not much different from hidden cam journalism or publicizing leaked documents.
  - rpenm 13y ago
    "Public interest" usually distinguishes journalism from other media. Granted, this is a nebulous concept. But it is hard to make the case that revenge porn serves the public interest. It targets the powerless in order to dominate and dehumanize. Even state surveillance pretends to serve the public interest - Moore and his ilk make no such claim. The Weiner case is an arguable comparison. The character/judgment of a political leader is usually considered a question of public interest. And voters didn't reject him for the images - he was the leading mayoral candidate for a time. Only the 2013 scandal made Weiner seem irredeemably dishonest. If anything, Weiner benefited from the gender bias in these kinds of cases.
    - yummyfajitas 13y ago
      "Public interest" is a very nebulous concept. For example, consider this news report which targets the powerless in order to dominate and dehumanize: http://valleywag.gawker.com/business-insider-ctos-is-your-new-tech-bro-nightmare-1280336916 http://valleywag.gawker.com/business-insider-ctos-is-your-ne... Much like the report on Pax Dickinson, revenge porn is simply exposing the (completely legal) views and opinions of an individual typically employed in the private sector. And it's doing so in a way designed to cause others to dislike the individual being reporter on. Is the report on Pax Dickinson not journalism? (Hypothetically suppose the report was based on leaked emails rather than public tweets if you believe privacy plays a role.) Appealing to the public interest really seems like reaching to me. And somehow, I suspect that the next Carlos Danger will argue that his nude selfies don't serve the public interest and should therefore be censored.
saalweachter 13y ago
A lot of crusaders get it backwards, trying to protect society from porn (or its cousin, prostitution). I would like to live in a society that was safe for porn.
- thenerdfiles 13y ago
  I see the point here. Attempting to put legal dogs onto this type of issue does not at all cover the scope of how society's perception pans out. The fact that a legal system might punish someone does not in any way demotivate the behavior but merely makes it more intractable when it does happen. That someone is punished doesn't change the motivations behind the victim's name change, and other efforts. The question still stands, for companies or institutions of victims like this: Do we want to affiliate ourselves with someone who has a love life that cannot be respected[0], that is out of line with our organization's ethos? Punishment does not at all address this cultural problem: What is porn ? [0]: "But the presence of Hip as a working philosophy in the sub-worlds of American life is probably due to jazz, and its knife-like entrance into culture, its subtle but so penetrating influence on an avant-garde generation—that post-war generation of adventurers who (some consciously, some by osmosis) had absorbed the lessons of disillusionment and disgust of the Twenties, the Depression, and the War. Sharing a collective disbelief in the words of men who had too much money and controlled too many things, they knew almost as powerful a disbelief in the socially monolithic ideas of the single mate, the solid family and the respectable love life." -- http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/the-white-negro-fall-1957 http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/the-white-neg...
  - johnchristopher 13y ago
    > The question still stands, for companies or institutions of victims like this: Do we want to affiliate ourselves with someone who has a love life that cannot be respected[0], that is out of line with our organization's ethos? If you do not align with the victim in these 'revenge porn' cases then you reinforce the extortionist's position. Does that align with any organization's ethos ?
    - deleted 13y ago
diminoten 13y ago
I can't imagine myself caring enough to deal with this the way she did. I think it might be a gender gap thing - I literally can't understand this reaction. Obviously I'm not an idiot, and would never cause this kind of pain to someone else, but it's foreign pain. It's the kind of pain I read about, and understand it exists in this world, but have no frame of reference for, like starvation or something like malaria. And what are employers doing, attempting to confront their employees about it? Are these employers not educated enough in how the Internet works to know precisely the intent of those who've contacted them with this information? Perhaps an employer notifies the victim of the harassment, but certainly doesn't attempt to take consequential action against the employee regarding the material.
- ohazi 13y ago
  > And what are employers doing, attempting to confront their employees about it? Are these employers not educated enough in how the Internet works to know precisely the intent of those who've contacted them with this information? Perhaps an employer notifies the victim of the harassment, but certainly doesn't attempt to take consequential action against the employee regarding the material. While I understand where you're coming from with this... it seems pretty naive/optimistic to honestly expect most people to behave this reasonably. Most people are not as smart as you and/or have some holier-than-thou moral perspective to throw into the mix and wouldn't have the first clue how to respond appropriately to something like this.
  - bambax 13y ago
    Many people may indeed have a holier-than-thou moral perspective, but certainly not all of them?
- prutschman 13y ago
  It's commendable that you're able to recognize that you have no frame of reference for understanding the distress, but don't go on to dismiss it as irrelevant or the result of overreaction. Too many people stop at that first step.
- tbrake 13y ago
robomartin 13y ago
I hope this doesn't come out wrong. She is a victim of a horrific crime. There is no doubt about that whatsoever. Anywhere else this guy would have been beaten to a pulp. If someone did this to my daughter...well, let's leave it there. Having said that, I have to wonder about the mental framework within which a girl thinks it might be a good idea to allow the taking of nude pictures and videos of herself. Please, someone help me understand this, because I clearly don't. The explanation and justification would be far more powerful if it came from a woman. For a model or aspiring actress it might very well be par for the course and that's that. That anyone else would think this isn't something that will one day come back to bite you is beyond me. In the case of the OP we are talking about a PhD student which, to me at least, implies a certain degree of intelligence and, hopefully, good judgement. Never write an email, take pictures or videos you don't want the world to see. Never. Ever. Then there's the other side of these situations. No honorable man would even propose his girlfriend to engage in taking such pictures or videos. Why? Because if you truly care for her you will always actively protect her. If drinking and drugs were involved it could be another matter. We could rightfully question the moral and ethical choices made by people willing to compromise their good judgement this way. Yes, I tend to think in some cases it takes two to tango. The guy is a slimeball who deserves financial consequences and jail time. If the pictures were taken with her consent, she is at fault for not showing good judgement. It was stupid and sometimes you pay for doing dumb things. What she experienced was extreme and it should be criminal. All I am saying is laws only protect you AFTER a crime was committed, not before. The only way to protect yourself from this kind of crime is to behave in such a way that it is impossible to find yourself in that predicament, ever. Another way to put it is: Killing is a crime with many laws and case law covering it. This is not going to protect you if you walk into a dark alley in a seedy neighborhood and get killed. Yes, the murderer is likely to go to jail if caught and convicted. What got you killed was your decision to enter that alley in the first place. You can't live life thinking there are no criminals around you. Passing laws does little to change this. If you are a woman reading this please remember: if you are in a relationship with someone who wants to take nude or compromising pictures or video of you, run away from that man as quickly as you can. He does not respect or protect you. He does not look after your best interests. He is an asshole. If you allow it be prepared for these pictures to end-up anywhere at all. Do not do it. It could come back and ruin your life. And please, don't drink or do drugs to such an extent that you lose the ability to exercise good judgement. Got to wonder about the girls in those girls gone wild videos. How many of them will look back at what they did and think it was a good idea.
jakewu1982 13y ago
This is not a black and white case. You need to read Ryan Seay's side of the story to get a better perspective of how things likely went down - http://jacobsvsseay.com http://jacobsvsseay.com
- mistermann 13y ago
  The essence of his side of the story is that the pictures and videos were here idea, and she enthusiastically produced them and sent them to her, and that their subsequent appearance on the internet was not his doing but the act of hackers who compromised his account and perhaps also obtained videos from Justin TV. He has enough evidence posted that it seems plausible and in my opinion that she's being a bit less than honest in her public persona about what actually happened, basically, that he coerced her into producing the content which he then distributed, when the reality may have been she's a bit of a wild girl in secret and would like to keep that aspect of her personality a secret. An excerpt: In closing, if I could impart any words to Ms. Jacobs, it would be the following… I’m sorry that someone did this to you, but it wasn’t me. It never was, isn’t and never will be me. At some point, you will have to accept that. Please don’t underestimate people’s ability to forgive. While it may not be possible for me to do so, people will understand if you reverse and tell the truth. From your constantly changing timeline and story, I’m concerned for you and I hope you’re talking to someone. It has been almost a half-decade since we last spoke, yet you seem to have crafted this detailed and elaborate construct in your head of what I have been doing all of these years. If this is sincerely what you believe and isn’t part of some elaborate and malicious plan, then I hope you get help; it’s frightening and sad to see. It can’t be me and I have absolutely no desire for it to be, but I hope you’re talking to someone. While I’m considerably angry with you and appalled by your actions, I don’t hate you. This is merely the beginning of our legal battle and it will assuredly get much worse from here, but in all matters besides these, I wish you well. We disagree on many matters and we will continue to disagree on many matters, but above all things, be honest, stay strong and please, don’t do anything stupid.
- BrandonMarc 13y ago
  Thank you for the link. When I read the original article about them making new laws, the libertarian in me twitches. Even moreso when I think about unintended consequences: As an example: what happens when someone is accused of revenge porn, yet is innocent? Similar to the original victim, the accused is also subjected to mob justice, and the court of public opinion makes up its mind based on whose story gets to the news wires first, fastest, and farthest. Consider, hypothetically: a woman uploads the pictures & videos herself, and then accuses her former lover, so that she can make his live hell for it. It could happen. That's where I get nervous about the idea being bandied about that making some new law to handle some specific thing will necessarily be effective ... it may, it may not, but the details and specific execution matter greatly.
knackernews 13y ago
I know love makes you do stupid things, but we live in a time of instant publishing, cloud galleries, face recognition and the biggest lie in college that is "I won't show anyone, I promise". Even celebrities with hundreds of thousands to burn can't control how their images go around on the internet. So when your clothes are off and you're worried about strangers seeing you, don't use the camera. Who knows when app will show up that allows any photo of a face to be instantly matched up against the billions of profile pics on Google+ / Facebook.
lcedp 13y ago
The guy is a total dick of course, but more importantly what never stops to amaze me what kind of dicks are the "normal" people that surround us on the work and other places. So suppose nude pictures of my coworker/acquaintances/etc appear and everyone becomes aware of this - well I will see these pictures and it might certainly give me some giggles but I won't think anything bad about this person - what's wrong with naked body, anyway? and who haven't taken such pictures at some point? Those crowd people are far more scary then the asshole who shared it in the first place.
juskrey 13y ago
I think she is very seriously deluded towards her life in general.

58 points by BrandonMarc 13y ago

Man it's a horrible issue here. I'm glad they're making progress but worried about adding some more 1st amendment exemptions. I can imagine this turning into a tool the powerful use to suppress "damaging information" or something along those lines. Maybe so long as it stays restricted to uncensored pictures of nudity things will go well.

mathgladiator 13y ago
I don't think this is a 1st amendment exception at all; I'm surprised laws around likeness rights (or even copyright) are not at play here.
- andrewfong 13y ago
  Copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject. So if the ex took the photo, the victim is out of luck. Likeness rights are a bit weird and vary by state, but generally, they only apply to using a person's likeness to advertise or imply an endorsement of some product or service. That said, there are more privacy-centric laws in various states that might apply here. But those laws don't really draw clear lines in the way that likeness or copyright laws would. Instead, these privacy laws usually turn on whether the information being disclosed is "newsworthy" -- not exactly a very objective standard.
  - crag 13y ago
    "Copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject. So if the ex took the photo, the victim is out of luck." Only if the subject gave permission (usually by signing a document) to the photographer. This is a very different situation. A jealous ex posting pictures he took of them all over the net. This girl had the right to expect those pictures to remain private. If he broke the law is debatable. But there's no denying her ex is a first class punk.
    - andrewfong 13y ago
      > Only if the subject gave permission (usually by signing a document) to the photographer. Permission from the subject is not required under U.S. copyright law. Unless there's some other agreement in place, it belongs to the photographer. From http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html: """The owner of the “work” is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph.""" Permission may matter for likeness rights, but as I mentioned earlier, that generally only applies in the context of advertising or implied endorsement. > But there's no denying her ex is a first class punk. Agreed, but it doesn't change the copyright analysis.
yummyfajitas 13y ago
Yes, I wrote about this the last time this topic came up here. There is another guy who's life was destroyed by revenge porn, specifically the public sharing of private selfies. Even 2 years after the incident, Carlos Danger (Anthony Wiener) is still being rejected from jobs (by voters) as a result of his actions. http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/defending_hunter_moore.html http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/defending_hunter_moor... I don't see a reasonable way to shut down revenge porn - it's pretty clearly journalism, and not much different from hidden cam journalism or publicizing leaked documents.
- rpenm 13y ago
  "Public interest" usually distinguishes journalism from other media. Granted, this is a nebulous concept. But it is hard to make the case that revenge porn serves the public interest. It targets the powerless in order to dominate and dehumanize. Even state surveillance pretends to serve the public interest - Moore and his ilk make no such claim. The Weiner case is an arguable comparison. The character/judgment of a political leader is usually considered a question of public interest. And voters didn't reject him for the images - he was the leading mayoral candidate for a time. Only the 2013 scandal made Weiner seem irredeemably dishonest. If anything, Weiner benefited from the gender bias in these kinds of cases.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    "Public interest" is a very nebulous concept. For example, consider this news report which targets the powerless in order to dominate and dehumanize: http://valleywag.gawker.com/business-insider-ctos-is-your-new-tech-bro-nightmare-1280336916 http://valleywag.gawker.com/business-insider-ctos-is-your-ne... Much like the report on Pax Dickinson, revenge porn is simply exposing the (completely legal) views and opinions of an individual typically employed in the private sector. And it's doing so in a way designed to cause others to dislike the individual being reporter on. Is the report on Pax Dickinson not journalism? (Hypothetically suppose the report was based on leaked emails rather than public tweets if you believe privacy plays a role.) Appealing to the public interest really seems like reaching to me. And somehow, I suspect that the next Carlos Danger will argue that his nude selfies don't serve the public interest and should therefore be censored.

saalweachter 13y ago

A lot of crusaders get it backwards, trying to protect society from porn (or its cousin, prostitution). I would like to live in a society that was safe for porn.

thenerdfiles 13y ago
I see the point here. Attempting to put legal dogs onto this type of issue does not at all cover the scope of how society's perception pans out. The fact that a legal system might punish someone does not in any way demotivate the behavior but merely makes it more intractable when it does happen. That someone is punished doesn't change the motivations behind the victim's name change, and other efforts. The question still stands, for companies or institutions of victims like this: Do we want to affiliate ourselves with someone who has a love life that cannot be respected[0], that is out of line with our organization's ethos? Punishment does not at all address this cultural problem: What is porn ? [0]: "But the presence of Hip as a working philosophy in the sub-worlds of American life is probably due to jazz, and its knife-like entrance into culture, its subtle but so penetrating influence on an avant-garde generation—that post-war generation of adventurers who (some consciously, some by osmosis) had absorbed the lessons of disillusionment and disgust of the Twenties, the Depression, and the War. Sharing a collective disbelief in the words of men who had too much money and controlled too many things, they knew almost as powerful a disbelief in the socially monolithic ideas of the single mate, the solid family and the respectable love life." -- http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/the-white-negro-fall-1957 http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/the-white-neg...
- johnchristopher 13y ago
  > The question still stands, for companies or institutions of victims like this: Do we want to affiliate ourselves with someone who has a love life that cannot be respected[0], that is out of line with our organization's ethos? If you do not align with the victim in these 'revenge porn' cases then you reinforce the extortionist's position. Does that align with any organization's ethos ?
  - deleted 13y ago

diminoten 13y ago

I can't imagine myself caring enough to deal with this the way she did. I think it might be a gender gap thing - I literally can't understand this reaction. Obviously I'm not an idiot, and would never cause this kind of pain to someone else, but it's foreign pain. It's the kind of pain I read about, and understand it exists in this world, but have no frame of reference for, like starvation or something like malaria. And what are employers doing, attempting to confront their employees about it? Are these employers not educated enough in how the Internet works to know precisely the intent of those who've contacted them with this information? Perhaps an employer notifies the victim of the harassment, but certainly doesn't attempt to take consequential action against the employee regarding the material.

ohazi 13y ago
> And what are employers doing, attempting to confront their employees about it? Are these employers not educated enough in how the Internet works to know precisely the intent of those who've contacted them with this information? Perhaps an employer notifies the victim of the harassment, but certainly doesn't attempt to take consequential action against the employee regarding the material. While I understand where you're coming from with this... it seems pretty naive/optimistic to honestly expect most people to behave this reasonably. Most people are not as smart as you and/or have some holier-than-thou moral perspective to throw into the mix and wouldn't have the first clue how to respond appropriately to something like this.
- bambax 13y ago
  Many people may indeed have a holier-than-thou moral perspective, but certainly not all of them?
prutschman 13y ago
It's commendable that you're able to recognize that you have no frame of reference for understanding the distress, but don't go on to dismiss it as irrelevant or the result of overreaction. Too many people stop at that first step.
tbrake 13y ago

robomartin 13y ago

I hope this doesn't come out wrong. She is a victim of a horrific crime. There is no doubt about that whatsoever. Anywhere else this guy would have been beaten to a pulp. If someone did this to my daughter...well, let's leave it there. Having said that, I have to wonder about the mental framework within which a girl thinks it might be a good idea to allow the taking of nude pictures and videos of herself. Please, someone help me understand this, because I clearly don't. The explanation and justification would be far more powerful if it came from a woman. For a model or aspiring actress it might very well be par for the course and that's that. That anyone else would think this isn't something that will one day come back to bite you is beyond me. In the case of the OP we are talking about a PhD student which, to me at least, implies a certain degree of intelligence and, hopefully, good judgement. Never write an email, take pictures or videos you don't want the world to see. Never. Ever. Then there's the other side of these situations. No honorable man would even propose his girlfriend to engage in taking such pictures or videos. Why? Because if you truly care for her you will always actively protect her. If drinking and drugs were involved it could be another matter. We could rightfully question the moral and ethical choices made by people willing to compromise their good judgement this way. Yes, I tend to think in some cases it takes two to tango. The guy is a slimeball who deserves financial consequences and jail time. If the pictures were taken with her consent, she is at fault for not showing good judgement. It was stupid and sometimes you pay for doing dumb things. What she experienced was extreme and it should be criminal. All I am saying is laws only protect you AFTER a crime was committed, not before. The only way to protect yourself from this kind of crime is to behave in such a way that it is impossible to find yourself in that predicament, ever. Another way to put it is: Killing is a crime with many laws and case law covering it. This is not going to protect you if you walk into a dark alley in a seedy neighborhood and get killed. Yes, the murderer is likely to go to jail if caught and convicted. What got you killed was your decision to enter that alley in the first place. You can't live life thinking there are no criminals around you. Passing laws does little to change this. If you are a woman reading this please remember: if you are in a relationship with someone who wants to take nude or compromising pictures or video of you, run away from that man as quickly as you can. He does not respect or protect you. He does not look after your best interests. He is an asshole. If you allow it be prepared for these pictures to end-up anywhere at all. Do not do it. It could come back and ruin your life. And please, don't drink or do drugs to such an extent that you lose the ability to exercise good judgement. Got to wonder about the girls in those girls gone wild videos. How many of them will look back at what they did and think it was a good idea.

jakewu1982 13y ago

This is not a black and white case. You need to read Ryan Seay's side of the story to get a better perspective of how things likely went down - http://jacobsvsseay.com http://jacobsvsseay.com

mistermann 13y ago
The essence of his side of the story is that the pictures and videos were here idea, and she enthusiastically produced them and sent them to her, and that their subsequent appearance on the internet was not his doing but the act of hackers who compromised his account and perhaps also obtained videos from Justin TV. He has enough evidence posted that it seems plausible and in my opinion that she's being a bit less than honest in her public persona about what actually happened, basically, that he coerced her into producing the content which he then distributed, when the reality may have been she's a bit of a wild girl in secret and would like to keep that aspect of her personality a secret. An excerpt: In closing, if I could impart any words to Ms. Jacobs, it would be the following… I’m sorry that someone did this to you, but it wasn’t me. It never was, isn’t and never will be me. At some point, you will have to accept that. Please don’t underestimate people’s ability to forgive. While it may not be possible for me to do so, people will understand if you reverse and tell the truth. From your constantly changing timeline and story, I’m concerned for you and I hope you’re talking to someone. It has been almost a half-decade since we last spoke, yet you seem to have crafted this detailed and elaborate construct in your head of what I have been doing all of these years. If this is sincerely what you believe and isn’t part of some elaborate and malicious plan, then I hope you get help; it’s frightening and sad to see. It can’t be me and I have absolutely no desire for it to be, but I hope you’re talking to someone. While I’m considerably angry with you and appalled by your actions, I don’t hate you. This is merely the beginning of our legal battle and it will assuredly get much worse from here, but in all matters besides these, I wish you well. We disagree on many matters and we will continue to disagree on many matters, but above all things, be honest, stay strong and please, don’t do anything stupid.
BrandonMarc 13y ago
Thank you for the link. When I read the original article about them making new laws, the libertarian in me twitches. Even moreso when I think about unintended consequences: As an example: what happens when someone is accused of revenge porn, yet is innocent? Similar to the original victim, the accused is also subjected to mob justice, and the court of public opinion makes up its mind based on whose story gets to the news wires first, fastest, and farthest. Consider, hypothetically: a woman uploads the pictures & videos herself, and then accuses her former lover, so that she can make his live hell for it. It could happen. That's where I get nervous about the idea being bandied about that making some new law to handle some specific thing will necessarily be effective ... it may, it may not, but the details and specific execution matter greatly.

knackernews 13y ago

I know love makes you do stupid things, but we live in a time of instant publishing, cloud galleries, face recognition and the biggest lie in college that is "I won't show anyone, I promise". Even celebrities with hundreds of thousands to burn can't control how their images go around on the internet. So when your clothes are off and you're worried about strangers seeing you, don't use the camera. Who knows when app will show up that allows any photo of a face to be instantly matched up against the billions of profile pics on Google+ / Facebook.

lcedp 13y ago

The guy is a total dick of course, but more importantly what never stops to amaze me what kind of dicks are the "normal" people that surround us on the work and other places. So suppose nude pictures of my coworker/acquaintances/etc appear and everyone becomes aware of this - well I will see these pictures and it might certainly give me some giggles but I won't think anything bad about this person - what's wrong with naked body, anyway? and who haven't taken such pictures at some point? Those crowd people are far more scary then the asshole who shared it in the first place.

juskrey 13y ago

I think she is very seriously deluded towards her life in general.