Her analogies are mixed up but the point she is trying to make is that circulating nudes without a persons permission is violating them. If you peek through someone’s window at them undressing it is a crime, if they let you watch them undress it is not. Same principal. If they took nudes for a specific person and purpose and now those are being used elsewhere by others it is a violation of them just as much as if you were peeping through their window. Nudes aren’t necessary but very few things in society really are. The fact your nudes could be leaked is no more a justification than the fact your banking info or SSN could be leaked. Even if you “should have known better” than to give them out- you should “know better” than to fall for many frauds but the law will still investigate and prosecute as far as practical those who do abuse those trusts.
interesting concept. So if you supply your social security number or personal information to someone it is no longer private correct? If you let someone borrow your car or stay at your home while you are away it is now alright for them to rent it out to strangers? If you give someone your credit card number they may do with it as they please?
No but a better parallel to nudes would be if I gave you a present, are you allowed to give it to someone else? They aren’t giving you someone. Not renting you something or letting you borrow something. It is given to you. Don’t get me wrong, I think sending a nude someone sent you is horrible. You deserve to be punch in the groin/face for it. But I think it is a risk everyone takes when they send them and they need to accept responsibility for taking that risk and sending the nude. It’s not completely their fault it got sent to more people but it was a risk they took.
@guest_ about the borrowing of a car, if it's used in a crime, in some states you can still be prosecuted even if you were sound asleep during the crime; which I find fucked up because it opens a whole pandora's box.
I think her message is somewhat true but her delivery is false. A better analogy is: “if you don’t want to be raped then don’t wear clothing that might turn someone on.” Or “if you don’t want to be robbed don’t buy nice things.” “If you don’t want to be murdered, don’t go out in public and avoid people you don’t know.”
The problem is, this isn’t a good parallel. One is you sending stuff out and one is someone taking something from you. The more similar parallel to what she was saying would be someone taking pictures of you without your permission or someone taking your phone and sending nudes you have on your phone to people. But the parallels she made are not the same thing at all
Her parallels are not very good, but your breakdown is flawed. You neglect intent. If you allow your family member to borrow your car, you have put it out there, so is it ok for them to let their hairstylist borrow it, or rent it out to strangers? If you put your information on Facebook, is it ok for Zuc to do whatever he wants with it, or for anyone else to use it as well? Perhaps the most basic and classic example- if you tell someone you trust a secret- is it ok they tell anyone they feel like? That’s if we even assume the nudes were sent to someone and not taken. But sticking to the idea they were sent out- does that make it ok to photograph someone through an open window with a drone naked? If they didn’t want to have it out there they should have been more careful no? And can we assume that because someone appeared naked in public or in a film once they are ok being seen naked by anyone any time? She isn’t very well spoken but the idea that it is wrong is true regardless.
Is it okay, no. But it is a risk you have when you send nudes. The secret is the same thing. It is a risk you have to consider. If you put it out there then there’s a chance it’ll get shared. I’m not saying it’s okay to do it but it is still the risk that is there. The argument is, if you don’t want to have nudes go public, the safest thing to do is to not take them. If you don’t want Facebook to have your info, don’t put it on Facebook. If you don’t want your family member to let someone else use your car, don’t let them borrrow it. There is a risk involved when you open up the door, you need to account for t.
There’s truth there but not whole truth. If it were that simple we wouldnt have laws against fraud, libel, or slander- but long have they been illegal. While unnecessary to give- knowing your name shouldn’t mean someone may use it however they see fit. Similarly California had already enacted a first of its kind law making it illegal in many cases to disseminate nude photos without express permission. An active US senate bill now criminalizes such actions under many situations. Before that there was already copyright protection for any photo, and except under specific criteria you hold full copyrights to a photo taken by you regardless of wether you share that photo publicly. The basics of law tell us it should be so, even if decency does not. The question isn’t if there is risk, but if there should be risk. Short of calls anarchy there is little justification for why it should be a risk. That is changing in the law as it should.
I guess my point is that even though it is fucked up, it shouldn’t be something that is a legal issue. You took a risk and you have to deal with any and all consequences. If I send nudes, I run the risk of them being spread. If I smoke a cigarette I run the risk of health issues. if I have sex, I run the risk of getting pregnant. If I blow off studying for an test in school or a project at work, I risk of a poor grade or being fired. There are too many things now that people fall on legality to take the risk off thenselves instead of being a responsible person is all I’m saying.
Your examples are flawed. Firstly the expected outcome of most of your examples is harmful where as the expected outcome of sending a picture to someone is not harmful. Secondly your examples all use cases where a single person directly causes the undesired result, not cases where a second party performs an action without their consent and causes the harm. There’s the key. The RISK is set up by the first party, but the HARM is caused by the second party. When I invite you to my home I risk you stealing. If you steal though, you have caused the harm- a crime. If I give you my credit card over the phone for a purchase I’ve risked you giving my information to others, but if you do it you have caused the harm- a crime. If I accept your $100 bill without checking it, I’ve taken a risk. If it is counterfeit you’ve done the harm and the crime. For society to function harmful abuse of trust is generally illegal. Even a lie constitutes fraud where one is relying on that lie causes harm.
Well put and valid examples. I understand what your saying. I’m not saying that’s you are wrong. I just see things as being taken or stolen as a crime because you are physically losing something where as in this instance, they are just breaking a trust/bond. Again I’m not saying that it isn’t wrong, I just don’t think it should be a crime to do so because there is a certain degree of wrong that constitutes a crime where as someone forwarding a picture is a break of trust yes but not a crime. Legality should lot be involved in socialialty. I shouldn’t be able to sue you for telling someone else a secret I told you in private. That’s a social issue. That’s all I’m saying. But very good argument and well put!
While I do agree that the law is quite clumsy and rigid- prone to abuse and absurdity- and shouldn’t be too involved in daily life, and while I agree that it’s a slippery slope to “the thought police” at the same time you are taking something. You are harming them. As an example- if I enter your home through an open window- what have I taken? Nothing. I haven’t forced my way through any locks, and arguably the open window is an open invitation to let anyone enter isn’t it? What harm does it cause- me being within your home? Yet this is illegal. If I follow you, call you, show up all the paces you go- what have I done to you? What have I taken? Yet stalking is illegal. These are intangibles. They cause harm as sure as a punch to the face or a sexual grope do. Intangibly perhaps, but measurable none the less. Is it not a crime to leak secrets or sensitive information already in many cases? Why shouldn’t this be protected as well?
Breaking and entering is illegal but if it’s it locked and there’s no “no trespassing” signs then in some states it isn’t illegal because there’s no postage forbidding it. Stalking is only illegal if the person files a suit saying they want it to stop. Punching in the face is assault and a sexual assault warrants no consent was given. These are all completely Different situations. In the situation of all of these, the is no exchange between things. In these situations they are encroaching in touch. In the situation of a nude, you are giving them something. You are supplying them with something. Not supplying them information to be used for the use of a purchase in which it is still yours but giving them something. It is the same as if I write you a poem and then you give that poem to someone else. I gave it to you. It is not under your control. Not my own. That’s the difference between your situations and the nudes. One is willingly given for the purpose of the other person having it
Quite literally not. With a photograph I can give you a photo, show you a photo without giving you rights to the photo. Rights to a photo belong to whoever took said photo. It doesn’t matter how many times the data is sent or copied, and giving a person permission to view or use a photo does not give them permission to share or exhibit said photo. In some states it is legal to enter a private residence if no sign is posted otherwise- but that doesn’t make it the norm, nor do you mention that if you are asked to leave, most of these states require you comply. So by this logic if I ask you not to post nudes, or after the fact to desist- the parceled still holds. Beyond property there are also laws on conditional gifts- those gifts given with conditions of use or possession. The law is full of themes which show us that president already exists to support that enforcing the legal status of nude photos as protected images is in line with the law- the senate and state of California agree.
The fact is that no one has the right to violate someone's privacy like that. It's operating under a premise of basic trust and human decency being offered in exchange. If you lend someone a loaded gun, you don't expect them to shoot you in the face with it. And thats not an unreasonable expectation.
However, the fact remains that there's a very big risk element. Sometimes the recipient isn't as trustworthy as you thought. Or you break up and things turn ugly. Sometimes its not even the recipient who fucks you over, but some third party that had no right to be involved at all.
Is it fair? No. Should it be a tolerated behaviour? No. But it's also a risk you take. Sometimes the Gamble pays off, sometimes the fallout is traumatizing to the point people can't recover from it. Even if the person responsible is punished, the Internet is a void.
Once something's out there, You're not getting it back. The plus side is that there's so much content out there, eventually the notoriety will fade. People don't have long attention spans and old content is often shoved to some forgotten backburner: accessible, but rarely does anyone bother to do so.
Until there's a perfect world, there are always going to be potential consequences. Like getting someone's name tattooed on your skin. Or leaving a fancy sportscar in your driveway, knowing the temptation might be just too great for some a**hole to resist. Because you know that those people DO exist. And everyone knows they do. Weigh your options, and proceed with as much caution as you feel is necessary.
That's all any of us can do, really
Risk exists in everything we do- it’s a self evident fact. A large part of society is alleviating the burden of risk so that people can live happily and be productive, spending their time and energy on other things than constant worry or self protection. It’s always a good idea to try and mitigate personal risk, but at the same time as a society a simple thing like sending a loved one a picture shouldn’t carry such power to shatter our life or cause emotional devastation due to malicious actions of another. There are plenty of laws already in existence to protect against such things, and as a society we have decided that malicious harm to others or harm through careless negligence is criminal as it hurts society. There are several laws already that protect hide photos and hopefully more to come. So my advice isn’t to “send at your own risk” but to know the law and protect yourself through it before you act, and if you get the chance push to change the law and societies views on this.
I've always wondered if that one dick pic I sent has ever been shared. I mean... I trust her but....
Learned my lesson then.
edit: for clarification, she sent me nudes first and I enjoyed then deleted, LIKE A GENTLEMAN.
However, the fact remains that there's a very big risk element. Sometimes the recipient isn't as trustworthy as you thought. Or you break up and things turn ugly. Sometimes its not even the recipient who fucks you over, but some third party that had no right to be involved at all.
Is it fair? No. Should it be a tolerated behaviour? No. But it's also a risk you take. Sometimes the Gamble pays off, sometimes the fallout is traumatizing to the point people can't recover from it. Even if the person responsible is punished, the Internet is a void.
Until there's a perfect world, there are always going to be potential consequences. Like getting someone's name tattooed on your skin. Or leaving a fancy sportscar in your driveway, knowing the temptation might be just too great for some a**hole to resist. Because you know that those people DO exist. And everyone knows they do. Weigh your options, and proceed with as much caution as you feel is necessary.
That's all any of us can do, really
Learned my lesson then.
edit: for clarification, she sent me nudes first and I enjoyed then deleted, LIKE A GENTLEMAN.
Don't trust people who are untrustworthy.