Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

California Outlaws 'Revenge Porn'

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the think-before-you-take-pictures dept.

Privacy 528

coondoggie writes "Call it a modern day love story: Boy meets girl; they 'like' each other; they privately sext naked pics of each other to celebrate; girl loses interest, breaks it off; guy responds by posting previously private pics to Internet site specializing in revenge; girl has little recourse, suffers much humiliation, ridicule. There is a lot of pressure to change the outcome of such wretched stories, which seem to be pervasive these days. Some relief is on the way the way, at least in California, where this week the governor signed one of the nation's first laws making so-called 'revenge porn' illegal. Specifically, the bill prevents people from electronically distributing or posting naked pictures of ex-romantic partners after a break-up with the intent to shame the person publicly."

cancel ×

528 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Old news (-1)

WillgasM (1646719) | about a year ago | (#45018847)

is old.

How about (5, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#45018883)

we accept people get naked and do fun things?
That would be far more beneficial in the long run.

You got naked and had sex, own up, move on.

TO Be Clear: IT's a horrible, rude, dhouch beg, jack ass movie to put that private stuff on the internet. I"m not siding with those assholes. It would just be nice that instead of going 'OMG she does what I do, but now its in a picture!' to 'So what, everyone does it, lets get the asshole that distribute the picture.'

Re:How about (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019133)

I don't do it :(

Re:How about (-1, Offtopic)

Behrooz Amoozad (2831361) | about a year ago | (#45019225)

Only if I could meta-moderate now...

Re:How about (-1, Offtopic)

Pieroxy (222434) | about a year ago | (#45019289)

Meta moderation still exists? I haven't meta modded for years...

Re:How about (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019145)

I think the point is people don't want pictures of themselves naked on the net. It isn't a problem of having people know you got naked and had sex. Most people are ok with that.

Re:How about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019221)

I think the point is people don't want pictures of themselves naked on the net.

People don't picture of me naked on the net, I'm okay with that.

Re:How about (5, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year ago | (#45019171)

How about an old but tried and true method to avoid this.

Don't let someone take FUCKING NAKED pictures of you!!!

Geez, when did people get so fucking boneheaded about this. Cameras have been around for a long time, and even back when you didn't run the risk of images being broadcast to the whole world in an instant, folks generally seemed smart enough to NOT let themselves get photographed in compromising solutions.

Not that anything about good sex is shameful, but c'mon, use a little common sense...if you let someone in this day in age make some homemade pr0n with you featured as the star....especially a chick, you will eventually be broadcast to the world with a dick in your mouth.

Seriously, when did people become brain dead about stuff like this, especially in this day in age?

Re: How about (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019247)

Speak for yourself. I'm not bright enough to stop people taking pictures of me naked (inc myself), so let's make up another law .. We don't have enough already.
This will also reenforce some other policies, like ... If you take a family photo and I'm walking in the background, I can sue you for copying my likeness without permission.

More boneheaded "I'm not responsible for my own actions" policies please.

Re:How about (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019393)

Cameras have been around for a long time, and even back when you didn't run the risk of images being broadcast to the whole world in an instant, folks generally seemed smart enough to NOT let themselves get photographed in compromising solutions.

Back in those days, photos were taken on photographic film which had to be developed, and in 99.9% of cases by someone not taking the photo or in the photo. Therefore, someone else would see the nudey.

Machines were invented for developing consumer photographic films but still they would be inspected by humans for quality control. They get to see the nudey.

In some countries, like the UK, with strict, old-fashioned prurient laws about the nudey, pictures of boobs and front-bottoms (male and female) could land you in jail with a conviction as a sexual pervert.

So in the "olden days" i.e. pre-cheap digital cameras, nudey pictures were very rare.

Re:How about (1)

eulernet (1132389) | about a year ago | (#45019401)

Don't let someone take FUCKING NAKED pictures of you!!!

On the bright side, it's a quick way to get your 15 minutes of fame:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_minutes_of_fame [wikipedia.org]

Re:How about (4, Insightful)

UppercaseM (2859767) | about a year ago | (#45019407)

Girls can't always control if someone takes a picture of them. Pictures can be taken with hidden cameras or while they are sleeping or drunk. They could be taken in a long term relationship or marriage where splitting up seemed unlikely. The fact is that if the pictures were agreed to be kept private, that's an oral contract that was breached which lead to an invasion of her privacy and other potentially negative affects such as the loss of a job. Telling women not to take/give pictures to an SO in case the person turns out to be a d-bag is like telling musicians to not to make songs if they don't want them pirated. If you want your girl to send you pictures, then respect her equal rights to them unless you don't want nudie pictures of your girl...

Re:How about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019257)

How is this insightful? Your last "sentence" isn't even a.

This law is to prtect Republicans. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019293)

This law is to protect Republicans and their "Perverted" ways.

After all, having sex with consenting adults is evil by Bible thumbing morons unless it's between a subjugated woman and a man.- that whole Bible Myth, ya know.

Let's NOT forget who shutdown our government and who is against love between two adults - the Republicans. We need to remember this. After all, THEY are probably hiding their ways.

Re:This law is to prtect Republicans. (1, Flamebait)

HexaByte (817350) | about a year ago | (#45019341)

This law was passed in California. Republicans there are as rare as Christians in Saudi Arabia!

Re:This law is to prtect Republicans. (4, Interesting)

dcw3 (649211) | about a year ago | (#45019421)

This law was passed in California. Republicans there are as rare as Christians in Saudi Arabia!

So Democrats elected Regan and Schwarzenegger?

Re:This law is to prtect Republicans. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019417)

If that's the case, then why did it pass a predominately Democratic state legislature and get signed by a Democratic governor?

Re:How about (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019361)

Yes, it would be wonderful if everyone in the world was suddenly a better person.

Unfortunately this is not going to happen in the short term.

So should we not act to rectify the situation in the immediate while we hold out for the ideal? Are you suggesting that the law should not actually be enacted?

Sometimes practical realities eclipse ideals.

So... can they do it pre-breakup? (3, Insightful)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about a year ago | (#45018901)

What a strange time we live in.

First, that the government needs to go stick it's nose into business like this. Second that people feel they deserve privacy for pictures they send to third parties unencumbered by any business contract or doctor/lawyer privilege. Who exactly gets to determine when a disclosure of photographs is or is not allowed? Now we have to take the understood intention of the first party into account? What about when someone changes their mind? What about when pictures are taken by a the second party? What about by a third party?

Strange.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (4, Insightful)

javajawa (126489) | about a year ago | (#45018997)

Well... without a contract... that third party does not have copyright of the image... what business does the third party have in distributing those photos, in the first place?

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (2, Informative)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year ago | (#45019039)

Depends. Did he take the picture? If so he does have the copyright.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (4, Insightful)

omnichad (1198475) | about a year ago | (#45019119)

But you can't use that image for commercial purposes (ad-supported web site counts) without getting a release from the person who is in the photo. It's still already illegal.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019309)

Does an ad-supported web site count?

Wouldn't that require model releases from every person on every photo on facebook?

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (3, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#45019331)

Not exactly true. Otherwise, posting any picture on the net would be illegal.
Its almost impossible to take a picture in any city and not have at least one person appear in it.

There is only an expectation of a release if your photo will be used as an endorsement or an advertisement.
I've appeared in hundreds of news photos, sports photos (due to having great seats close to the action).

I appear on several people's facebook pages even though I have no facebook account. If you step outside
your home, you are fair game.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (0, Troll)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about a year ago | (#45019195)

Uhm, no? Apparently you don't know anything about copyright.
The person on the picture has rights to their picture. That's why you can't go around taking pictures of strangers and put them on the internet.

Secondarily, there is privacy. Meaning you can't take a surveillance cam video of customers and put it online. Or in the context of this story, you share a intimate photo with someone close. But reposting outside that context is a violation of your privacy.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (2)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year ago | (#45019249)

That's why you can't go around taking pictures of strangers and put them on the internet.

I dunno where you live, but it is perfectly legal for me to stand in a public place, take pictures and publish them on the web....have you not seen everyone post their tourist pics on FB or flickr or other websites? You've not see websites of people showing off their street photography?

If it is editorial in nature, you can feel quite free to sell those images too, like to news agencies without any form of release.

But I posit to you, at least in the US, you are perfectly ok to take pictures of folks out on the public streets and put those images on the internet.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year ago | (#45019269)

Where did you get the idea that i cant put surveillance video online? You are very wrong.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019391)

The person on the picture has rights to their picture

Sorry, no. The subject in a photograph has no copyright interest in that photograph. People have a commercial interest in their image, which might restrict commercial use of a photograph, but it has nothing at all to do with copyright.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (1)

javajawa (126489) | about a year ago | (#45019211)

But no model release.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (2, Insightful)

Teun (17872) | about a year ago | (#45019021)

You will understand once it happens to you.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (2)

tylikcat (1578365) | about a year ago | (#45019177)

Though considering that society tends to heap a lot more scorn and abuse on women so exposed than men, maybe not.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (1)

Bigbutt (65939) | about a year ago | (#45019183)

You really want to see a picture of me naked?

You are sick and twisted. :D

[John]

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (4, Insightful)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year ago | (#45019187)

You will understand once it happens to you.

It will never happen to me because I set the bar for sending naked pictures of myself to someone a bit higher than "like". As in, "it's stupid to do that, whatever emotional attachment you think will be created by doing it is not worth having, and it could turn out badly when they get tired of liking me, which they will, because they clearly only like me because I sent them a naked picture."

If you decide to make friends "love" you by sending dirty pictures to them, then you made a bad decision and as an adult you shouldn't be protected from yourself by the nanny state.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (4, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year ago | (#45019215)

You will understand once it happens to you.

If you're stupid enough to let someone film you having sex, or even worse you take and send these compromising images of yourself and send them to folks...you deserve what you get.

For goodness sakes...try to cultivate at least a couple of healthy brain cells, and use them, eh?

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (1)

cod3r_ (2031620) | about a year ago | (#45019227)

Doubt it would happen to him since mostly people just put pictures of ex girls up. I also doubt most dudes give a shit if people see their junk.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019041)

Agreed! And I guess I thought it was already illegal to share nude pictures/videos of somebody else?

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019313)

Under what law, Sharia?

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year ago | (#45019189)

Yeah, can't imagine the government sticking its nose into something like an ex posting naked photos of you publicly with the intent to shame you. What's strange is this isn't already against the law. Or that you seem baffled by the idea of intent figuring into the law. Wow.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year ago | (#45019315)

If INTENT is the only separator, i can upload them anonymously and good luck proving I leaked them. You have to prove I did it with the explicit intent of harm. I could intend to release them as art, it is incidental if it caused the subject harm.

Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019357)

Honestly your honor, my intent was not to shame the person publicly. My intent was to share this wonderful and beautiful photo with the world. After all, there is no shame in sex. Case dismissed. Laws which seek to determine the intent behind something like this are stupid. Full stop.

Revenge? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45018903)

How the hell will they prove it's revenge? If you don't want naked pics of you posted on the internet, don't let him take pictures. This is one of the stupidest laws I've ever heard of.

Re:Revenge? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019083)

Presumably if you post it with the caption, "Bitch whore dumped my ass. Well now I'm gonna get mine."

Re:Revenge? (2)

ThatAblaze (1723456) | about a year ago | (#45019131)

That's just a marketing stunt to make crappy pictures a little more exciting. It bears very little resemblance to reality.

Re:Revenge? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019403)

You sounds like an expert on the topic...

Better late than never... (1)

dryriver (1010635) | about a year ago | (#45018921)

It seems that _positive_ internet laws only get passed when it is almost "too late". This one falls into that category, methinks. I've never understood why people engage in "revenge porn" in the first place. But I guess this gives victims of this practice - mostly women I am guessing - some way to fight their ex-boyfriends or ex-lovers. Sounds like a good & needed law overall. I support it...

Re:Better late than never... (4, Insightful)

omnichad (1198475) | about a year ago | (#45019101)

What about this?
1. In a lot of these cases, the person who uploaded the picture to the revenge site did not take the picture. It was sent to them some time before. They do not own copyright to the image. It was already illegal in that case.

2. These sites are funded by advertising. Therefore, the images are being used in a commercial manner. Your likeness cannot be used for commercial purposes without your explicit consent. It was already illegal in this case, too. [dmlp.org]

So we're really just adding an almost-impossible-to-prove situation on top of things that are already illegal. The problem is and always has been that the person whose picture is posted doesn't know about it because they would never visit the site. So they don't find out until everyone else already knows about it.

That's a lot of qualifications for "revenge porn" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45018933)

the bill prevents people from electronically distributing or posting naked pictures of ex-romantic partners after a break-up with the intent to shame the person publicly

So it's okay if I post pictures of an ex if I don't intent to shame him/her? Or if they were never a partner, just a friends with benefits? What if I print up some fliers and drop them over a freeway overpass? This law sounds too narrowly defined.

An alternative (2, Funny)

barlevg (2111272) | about a year ago | (#45018937)

Why not just make it legal for the ex-gf to kick the guy in the balls? [youtube.com]

Enforcement (1)

TheRon6 (929989) | about a year ago | (#45018951)

Is there anything to suggest that this law will be any more effective at curbing the free distribution of illicit data than previous laws currently failing to do the same? I'm guessing "no."

Re:Enforcement (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#45019001)

Actualy, it does.
It will mostly involve 2 parties. As such, knowing where the photos came from will be trivial.
SO legal recourse, which is what this is about, is far simpler here then a bittorrent that could have come from on of 1000 machines.

Re:Enforcement (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019219)

It will mean victims can get justice: The person that shared this photo gets in huge trouble.

But cleaning up the images from the Internet is hard.

Re:Enforcement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019397)

Really?

So there is no way: that photo had been uploaded to compromised data storage facility, someone hacked my PC (here's the receipt from local PC shop for the trojan removal), it was on my device that was stolen (here's the police report), or any other means for someone to gain access to the image.

Heck, the "injured party" could upload such images as their final act in the relationship (ie from your device through your ISP so logs say it was you), and then "find" such pictures, goto police, and you are in DEEP DEEP dodo. Much like there are some girls who claim rape the day after doing something consensual.

Bit torrent at least identifies the individual by IP. In the above case where someone gained unauthorized access to a device remotely - the IP logs on the public site would show it came from you (even though you knew nothing about it).

Girls don't let guys take pictures of your boobs.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45018953)

unless you have a picture of their tiny dick first!

Problem solved (2, Insightful)

Lucas123 (935744) | about a year ago | (#45018955)

Don't send naked photos of yourself to people you really don't know. In fact, don't send naked pictures of yourself over the Internet to anyone.

Re:Problem solved (2)

Farmer Tim (530755) | about a year ago | (#45019059)

In fact, don't send naked pictures of yourself over the Internet to anyone.

Good advice for Slashdotters. Nobody wants to see that.

Re:Problem solved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019061)

The problem *usually* is that boyfriends get upset at the end of the relationship with the girl and then post the girls images on the internet that may have been from a more intimate and happy/trusting time. These photos could have been from a camera that has photos never intended to be put up on the internet. People that do this are very petty and cruel and have no concern for the future of the individual whose privacy they just violated. Fully support this law!

Re:Problem solved (0)

dysmal (3361085) | about a year ago | (#45019115)

I love how everyone assumes it's the guy that does this. My friend had his ex g/friend do this to him because she found out about him dating someone she didn't like. Then again, this is the internet and there's no way for me to prove this unless i post pics...

Re:Problem solved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019167)

I said *usually* ? I didn't assume at all.

Re:Problem solved (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#45019301)

It's already illegal since the subject of the picture didn't authorize it. And how do you prove any of it? Most such acts would be untouchable due to lack of evidence.

At least under current law they can go after websites in the US which show the picture and from there, backtrack to who released the picture in the first place.

Re:Problem solved (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019067)

Don't send naked photos of yourself to people you really don't know. In fact, don't send naked pictures of yourself over the Internet to anyone.

Blaming The Victim, party of one? Your shut the fuck up is now ready.

Re:Problem solved (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019285)

Why? Is this not good advice in the age of revenge porn? I'm not the person you're replying to, just curious why the so-called "victim," who took the photos willingly in most cases, is absolved of any responsibility in situations like these. Feminist, I'm guessing?

Re:Problem solved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019303)

When the Victims have IQ's below 60. yes they deserve the blame for being STUPID.

Re:Problem solved (1)

Teun (17872) | about a year ago | (#45019077)

Rather OT isn't it?

This is about people that were in a romantic (or sexual) engagement that went sour, the internet is only got involved after the fact..

Re:Problem solved (1)

dysmal (3361085) | about a year ago | (#45019179)

Are you suggesting that people use "common sense"? What next...? People shouldn't post pics of doing a keg stand the night before calling into work???

Re:Problem solved (1)

UppercaseM (2859767) | about a year ago | (#45019231)

Good advice, but the uploader could be an ex-spouse or other long term relationship where a break up wasn't expected.

A retarded monkey could edit better... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45018961)

"Some relief is on the way the way"

You are fucking worthless, Slashdot "editors".

Re:A retarded monkey could edit better... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019093)

It's a quote from a song you numbnuts:

Some relief is on the way, the way
Some relief is on the way

Just because you didn't get the reference doesn't make the editors worthless.

Girl has little recourse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45018969)

She could accuse him of rape. That would probably work.

Re:Girl has little recourse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019237)

Or say she was underage. It worked in Walla Walla.

That'll show 'em. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45018973)

That law will be a strong deterrent. You can expect all this reprehensible behavior to stop once it's enacted.

Ownership (1, Funny)

nurb432 (527695) | about a year ago | (#45018989)

You gave me the image, its mine to do with as i please.

Re:Ownership (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019109)

Nope. Actually the image belongs to whoever took the picture, you cannot publish it without express consent of the copyright holder.

Re:Ownership (3, Informative)

UppercaseM (2859767) | about a year ago | (#45019139)

Not if it was agreed to be kept private (oral contract...go ahead and snicker). Also, I don't think that many people on here are considering the fact many women have pictures taken of them that they are unaware of (drunk, sleeping, hidden cam, etc.), and the type of person that would take those kinds of pictures is the exact type of person that would post them.

Re:Ownership (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019143)

Wrong, she lent you the image in much the same way you lend your credit card number to a store for the purpose of making a purchase. When the "transaction" is finished, the lending period is finished.

Would you have stores claim they own a copy of your credit card number and can do with it what they please?

captcha: pranks

Yeah, that'll do it (5, Insightful)

operagost (62405) | about a year ago | (#45018999)

I can't imagine how they will prove intent or source in most cases. Hint: they won't. This will make the situation worse, with the legal system being used for false-flag blackmail of exes in revenge.

Re:Yeah, that'll do it (2)

UppercaseM (2859767) | about a year ago | (#45019203)

I think that a major indicator would be where it was posted. Yougotposted vs a P2P porn upload. One shows malintent, where the other could be an honest mistake uploading a folder. I'm sure a lot has to do with whether or not they are willing to take the image down as well.

Revenge porn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019007)

First thing I was thinking when I read the title is when a person have sex with someone only with the intend to hurt a lover. It can also be taped and posted to the lover and this can lead to suicide or even murder.

Just Quit Fucking!! (1)

zenlessyank (748553) | about a year ago | (#45019027)

You cant record what isn't performed. Stupid ass shit on Slashdot.

with the intent (1)

twdorris (29395) | about a year ago | (#45019095)

If it's limited to only those cases where someone can prove "intent to cause serious emotional distress", then it's not going to be very effective. I see loopholes o'plenty.

No, that won't be so tough (1)

sirwired (27582) | about a year ago | (#45019223)

If the picture is uploaded to Craigslist with the caption: "For a good time, call..." or to one of the several services that exist to serve this exact market (with fields for name and contact info of the victim, no less!), no, intent is not hard to prove at all.

Re:with the intent (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year ago | (#45019265)

"I posted the pictures so that someone who needed pictures to catfish someone else could do it more easily."

everybody is naked under their clothes (2)

FudRucker (866063) | about a year ago | (#45019099)

hey girls and women: if you dont want some loser you dumped posting pics of you on the net then dont take nude pics of yourself,

people need to get over their hangups with nudity, and they need to understand there is a difference between nude photos and porn, (hint: its not porn until sexual activity is involved)

nobody is naked under their clothes (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about a year ago | (#45019381)

Your not naked under you clothes. You are clothed under you clothes. You are under your clothes. And if your wearing clothes you are not naked. Also these incidents normally involve picture that were intended as pornograpy. No one is sending nudes to a lover for medical reasons.

Re:everybody is naked under their clothes (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year ago | (#45019383)

Some people would argue that the reaction it causes in the viewer is what makes porn 'porn' i.e. 'I know it when i see it'. Not me, i wouldnt argue that, but other people do.

Intent is the key word... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019125)

...but judge, my intent was to impress my friends, potential girlfriends, etc. with the hotness of my ex. ...but judge, my intent was to let other guys know that such a hottie was now available, so that she might find a new boyfriend more easily. ...but judge, this photo is a work of art and thus protected by the first amendment.

etc...

Intent seems a high barrier to prove...

Political Scandal (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about a year ago | (#45019193)

This is just going to be used to supress scandals that politicians get in. I expect it will be 90% used by men against women. To hide workplace harrasment, adultry, child abuse, and prostitution.

So it is OK if girls do it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019197)

Funny all the talk of sexism these days yet no one seems to have an issue with the claim that only the guy does this? So girls never post or try to shame an EX? Yah im sure thats right......... Oh I get it if the girl does it then it must be all about GIRL POWER!! and im sure its fine

Four rules to live by (5, Insightful)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | about a year ago | (#45019201)

1. Don't say anything you wouldn't say to your boss and your mother.
2. Don't post anything you wouldn't want your boss, and mother to read.
3. Don't take, or allow to be taken pictures you wouldn't show to your boss and mother.
4. Nothing is ever anonymous!

I live by them, and so should you.

Re:Four rules to live by (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019389)

My mother is dead, you insensitive clod.

Well there goes my saturdays (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about a year ago | (#45019297)

DRAT FOILED AGAIN!

Won't work... (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#45019311)

Proving intent and clarifying when something was "posted publicly" is tough to do. For instance, what's to stop a slimy person from posting nude pics to a website that has a "We're still together" button that acts as a dead man's switch, such that if it isn't pressed in time, the pics get publicized. Who's doing the publishing then? And if it's one of the involved partners, when did it actually occur? When they uploaded them pre-breakup, or when they refused to lie later about their status?

Alternatively, I can just see folks posting nude pics of ex-partners with statements along the line of "Check out what I'm missing, now that we're not together any more." Was it done for revenge? Because the person is pining away? Because they want to make others jealous of what they had? Who knows? Laws regulating intent are always difficult to enforce, and are generally ill-advised.

Even so, I do like the spirit of what this law is trying to do. People should have some control over how information that they provided to others in confidence is used. Whether than control should be mandated by law or regulated via codes of conduct and other societal factors, however...

how is it shameful? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019319)

Playing devil's advocate here, clearly the person who went out with them thought they looked good. Unless they didn't, and then people would just think the poster can only date ugly people.

Why does this only apply to naked exes? (2)

new death barbie (240326) | about a year ago | (#45019321)

Why should the law care about whether or not there has been a romantic relationship, or even if there's nudity?

How about, if you have pictures of another person, given with reasonable expectations that it was for your private use (i.e. you do not have any signed permission to the contrary), why not just make it illegal to make these public with intent to bully, defame, humiliate, or shame?

Celebrities and other people in the public eye excepted, as always, or half the entertainment industry would crash overnight.

... Profit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019335)

1) Guy meets girl. Girl is into him, sexts him some scandalous photos.
2) Guy dumps girl.
3) Girl leaks those photos of herself onto the internet, prosecutes guy.

(Feel free to swap the sexes in the case above if it makes you feel better.)

Think it won't happen? Wanna bet? Something like 8% of rape charges taken to the police are fabricated.

Lawyers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019339)

Ah, to be a defense lawyer.

Your honor:
1) My client did not create the image.
2) My client and the accuser never agreed to keep the images private, and my client never understood the images to be private.
3) My client never intended to cause the accuser to have serious emotional distress.
4) The accuser never suffered serious emotional distress.
5) Assuming, arguendo, that my client created the image, understood that it would be kept private, intended to cause the accuser serious emotional distress, and indeed caused serious emotional distress, the content of my client's speech does not constitute a true threat or violate another lawful criminal statute. As such, it is protected speech and may not be the subject of criminal prosecution. See United States v. Cassidy, (D.Md.2011) 814 F. Supp. 2d 574.

Damn, if only I could charge $500 an hour for those 5 minutes, I could have bought myself a very nice lunch today.

I'm just thinking about the court. (1)

Behrooz Amoozad (2831361) | about a year ago | (#45019349)

Just imagine, even one or two dozen people watch that two hour video of you doing all kinds of stuff.
DOJ are gonna need some gay, lesbian, assexual, whatever judges and lawyers, because none can predict what happens if they of all get a boner in a courtroom.ROFL.

First ammendment (1)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | about a year ago | (#45019351)

Yeah, this will definitely survive a first amendment challenge. /s

Why isn't this already illegal? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45019377)

This seems like it falls in the area that's already covered by intimidation, extortion and blackmail. i.e. "You will not break-up with my lame, abusive ass, or I will hurt you publicly."

Don't do it for revenge (2)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#45019415)

If in 2008 the NSA people had no problem sharing the conversations of soldiers with their girlfriends between them [go.com] just imagine how they would be sharing now whatever digital you take with your girlfriend now. So just label it "national security" instead of revenge and should be ok. Or stop taking any digital media that is not meant for sharing with other people, no matter how good or bad are going your relations with your girlfriend, with no privacy that is the first thing that will be misused.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>