×

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!

The Snoop Next Door Is Posting to YouTube

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the get-off-my-lawn-you-damn-kids dept.

Privacy 244

Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Your most trivial missteps are increasingly ripe for exposure online, reports the Wall Street Journal, thanks to cheap cameras and entrepreneurs hoping to profit from websites devoted to the exposure. From the article: 'The most trivial missteps by ordinary folks are increasingly ripe for exposure as well. There is a proliferation of new sites dedicated to condemning offenses ranging from bad parking and leering to littering and general bad behavior. One site documents locations where people have failed to pick up after their dogs. Capturing newspaper-stealing neighbors on video is also an emerging genre. Helping drive the exposés are a crop of entrepreneurs who hope to sell advertising and subscriptions.' But other factors are at work, including a return to shame as a check on social behavior, says an MIT professor."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

244 comments

No problem? (3, Insightful)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586706)

I don't see a problem. You can either forgoe shameful behavior or keep it hidden. If you're doing something you would be ashamed of then you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you're doing something that you feel you shouldn't be ashamed of but that others might want to shame you for, then keep it private. I call that civilization. For those that say they are entitled or should have the right, if most people agree then there is no reason to be ashamed. If most people don't agree then maybe you need to reassess whether or not you should be ashamed.

I'm betting some will disagree with me. If you can provide me an example of where I might be wrong I'm certainly willing to think about it. Offhand, I couldn't think of an example on my own where my logic wouldn't work.

First post?

Re:No problem? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17586746)

In Soviet Russia, YouTube watches YOU!!

Re:No problem? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17586818)

In Soviet Russia, YouTube watches YOU!!

Shouldn't that be, "In Soviet Russia, TubeYou!"

No problem? No shame. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17586830)

"I don't see a problem. You can either forgoe shameful behavior or keep it hidden. If you're doing something you would be ashamed of then you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you're doing something that you feel you shouldn't be ashamed of but that others might want to shame you for, then keep it private. I call that civilization."

Hey everyone! I illegally download from Sealand.

Re:No problem? (5, Insightful)

robably (1044462) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586850)

You don't see a problem? The problem is How long does someone have to be ashamed for, and in front of how many people? You put something on the internet and potentially it's there forever and can be seen by millions, like with Star Wars Kid. I believe forgiveness is necessary in society - being allowed to learn from your mistakes and move on to become a better person - but we seem to have a culture where nobody forgives and nobody is allowed to forget. The people doing the uploading, who feel the need to shame and humliate someone this much, must be pretty unpleasant themselves.

Re:No problem? (2, Interesting)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586928)

I agree that the ones doing the uploading probably have issues. I have better things to do with my time. It would take a pretty egregious offense for me make the effort.

I hope the Star Wars Kid isn't ashamed and keep in mind that he's the exception, not the rule. It's amazing to see the life span that video has had. I see a kid having a good time, not anything to really be ashamed about.

Re:No problem? (2, Insightful)

killjoe (766577) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587696)

It's great that you see nothing shameful or embarrassing about that video. The problem is that the vast majority of the people on this planet don't share your view and they will mock this person for the rest of his life. Whats worse is that there is a real chance he will be denied a job because of it.

Re:No problem? (2, Insightful)

Snarfangel (203258) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587014)

You don't see a problem? The problem is How long does someone have to be ashamed for, and in front of how many people?

Just like everyone gets fifteen minutes of fame, in the future, everyone will get fifteen minutes of notoriety. As long as you can withstand that, you're golden.

Look at Richard Jewell. He was falsely accused of planting a bomb and had every media outlet on the planet broadcasting his picture. Yet how many people today could pick him out of a lineup, or have more than the vaguest recollection of what he looks like, other than his weight? Anything less newsworthy will net you fifteen minutes of fury, and then people will go on to the next scandal.

Re:No problem? (2, Funny)

X-treme-LLama (178013) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587150)

Didn't he look vaguely like Mike Holmgren, but with a semi-mullet?

Yeah I've googled it now, but that's what I remembered from before hand. Fairly close if I do say so. :)

However in general you have a good point.

Re:No problem? (1)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587620)

Look at Richard Jewell. He was falsely accused of planting a bomb and had every media outlet on the planet broadcasting his picture. Yet how many people today could pick him out of a lineup, or have more than the vaguest recollection of what he looks like, other than his weight? Anything less newsworthy will net you fifteen minutes of fury, and then people will go on to the next scandal.


Sure, our emotional involvement with Richard Jewell may involve the proverbial Fifteen Minutes and then we're on to whatever the story of the week is. But being falsely accused on national TV of being a terrorist in front of your friends and family... I have to wonder, how many days has he had when he hasn't thought back on this episode with bitterness and resentment? If you were falsely accused of something and your "guilt" was broadcast around the country, how long would the stain of that false accusation haunt you? Imagine all the job interviews, dates, and casual introductions at parties where you'd desperately hope your name wasn't recognized. Even assuming you are guilty, say, of swiping the neighbor's newspaper or letting your dog crap on the neighbor's lawn, is national notoriety a fitting punishment?

Redefinition of shame (2, Insightful)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587182)

...nobody is allowed to forget."

I might rephrase it as "anybody can refresh their memory if they want to", for you don't have to watch it repeatedly on youtube. But regardless, I think there is a good side to this. Some of what is considered shameful by the majority of our population should not be so, and continued exposure to it may cause some rethinking of the issue. We may end up with a better common definition of shame.

The most prominent examples are things in the sexual area. Nudity is often considered shameful; IMHO it should not be. Necking in public is often considered worse than fighting in public; IMHO it should be love not war.
On the other hand, shame may increase for some things. For certain activities like lying - which IMHO is undershamed - that would also be a good thing.

Re:Redefinition of shame (5, Interesting)

LightCecil (792100) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587322)

There's a book that covers this. It's a science fiction book that explores a society that emerges when a freely available, perfectly portable surveillance technology emerges. It's based on projections of light-transmitting wormholes that can be put up *anywhere*, even in your house. Now, of course the initial usages are obvious, but once the novelty of "hee, I can look at people in their bathroom" wears off, the society becomes increasingly uncaring about the old social stigmas and shames. The technology also extends into time, letting people see what real history is like, rather than the history people accept, filtered through thousands of years of alterations.

Though it destroys many people's faiths of famous figures of the past, it also constructs a society where the shames have shifted from transient things like sexuality.

It's called "The Light of Other Days", and it was a collaboration between Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter.

Exactly. (1)

Travoltus (110240) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587216)

The end result of all this is forced conformity.

There is nothing shameful about sitting at a restaurant and remembering that you need to call your doctor.

Some asshat posting that information online - along with your personal info - is just trying to bully you into behaving the way they want you to, for no good reason.

You're now watching your back and altering your behavior not just to serve the arbitrary and wildly capricious standard of "normalness" to avoid being ridiculed, but in fact you're held hostage to anyone's momentary whims that may have nothing to do with enforcing normalcy.

If they see you stumbling at a bus stop they can post it and cause your equally immature and whimsical customers who might have seen you on youtube, to refuse to do business. That's damaging.

We have already reached the end game of the surveillance state. Rejoice - a great reckoning is due very soon and I'm not kidding.

Re:Exactly. (2, Insightful)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587372)

Not to mention the fact that far too many employers have fairly extensive checks done on potential employees now.

That "harmless" video could impact your career for the rest of your life.

The fact that businesses need to realize that a person's personal life is just that - personal - and they have no business basing their hiring decisions on perfectly normal, legal activities that are done outside of the workplace is a whole other matter.

Remember, boys and girls, things on the internet never really go away.

Re:Exactly. (1)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587388)

If you're in a restaurant and need to make an important call the polite thing to do would be get up and go to the restroom lobby or outside and make the call.

You do make a good point about being "held hostage to anyone's momentary whims". Another post made reference to "noise". At some point only the most extreme cases will be used to try and cause shame. All others will be ignored and viewed by such a small number of people that they won't be shamed.

Re:Exactly. (2, Insightful)

Travoltus (110240) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587484)

If you're in a restaurant and need to make an important call the polite thing to do would be get up and go to the restroom lobby or outside and make the call.

You do make a good point about being "held hostage to anyone's momentary whims". Another post made reference to "noise". At some point only the most extreme cases will be used to try and cause shame. All others will be ignored and viewed by such a small number of people that they won't be shamed.

And how do you know that the idiot close enough to film you for that minor infraction is not psychopathic enough to lean over and spit in your food while you're gone? These people, by definition of their behavior, are crazy enough to do that. Or, should I use the more accurate word... fanatical... dictatorial... stodgy, hateful, spiteful, mean spirited, utterly lacking a life of their own... People who expose you online for making/taking a call in a restaurant need themselves to be checked in somewhere for their own good.. and ours.

As for some videos being ignored... no, not really. I'm a top manager at a really big small business (yes, contradiction there) and I know all about investigating applicants. I know my underling managers and I'd be hard pressed to hire someone who would see someone being humiliated online over some minor shit and not laugh at it and then see this person as a total joke and not a potential employee. It happens everywhere. Almost everyone is mentally at the point of doing that now.

They were actually set up for it by Reality TV.

Come back and visit this post in 5 years. You'll be shocked and awed by how much worse things have gotten by then than my dire predictions today. 5 years.

Re:Exactly. (0)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587574)

"And how do you know that the idiot close enough to film you for that minor infraction is not psychopathic enough to lean over and spit in your food while you're gone?"

Well, I don't usually eat alone.

"As for some videos being ignored... no, not really. I'm a top manager at a really big small business (yes, contradiction there) and I know all about investigating applicants. I know my underling managers and I'd be hard pressed to hire someone who would see someone being humiliated online over some minor shit and not laugh at it and then see this person as a total joke and not a potential employee. It happens everywhere. Almost everyone is mentally at the point of doing that now."

In your situation it sounds like you, and your "underling managers", all need to be fired and replaced with people who have hearts that aren't grinch sized. Seriously, how can you fail to consider someone for hire because they were humiliated online over some "minor shit". If it's minor shit then it should be easy to ignore. There's also the huge issue of mistaken identity. Most of this video is going to be crap quality and at best you might be able to say, "he kinda looks like that dude I saw in that online humiliating video". That's a pretty big assumption on your part to say that the guy you're interviewing is the SAME guy you saw online.

Re:Exactly. (1)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587660)

If you're in a restaurant and need to make an important call the polite thing to do would be get up and go to the restroom lobby or outside and make the call.


So is it safe to say then that if you are in a restaurant and need to have an important conversation the polite thing to do is get up and go to the restroom lobby or outside to have the conversation? It is perfectly legitimate to make a phone call at normal conversational volume anywhere that a normal conversation could be held. I think what ticks of most of the cellphone bigots is that they can no longer hear both sides of the conversation. It has very little to do with the actual noise involved.

Re:Exactly. (1)

Wansu (846) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587534)


  We have already reached the end game of the surveillance state. Rejoice - a great reckoning is due very soon and I'm not kidding.

I reckon I'd be tickled to see a YouTube video of some nosy bastard's camera phone shoved up his ass.

Re:No problem? (1)

quantaman (517394) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587470)

How many more Star Wars Kids will we have though?

Remember there's only so much shame to go around. The fact is there's now thousands of videos on youtube of people doing stuff way more embarrasing than Star Wars means that we're getting past the point of focusing that much attention on a single person. Even if once in a blue moon something goes bigtime like the Stolen Sidekick thing we're beginning to get to the point that we understand that it's not such a big deal and these things go bigtime mostly for their novelty (which will soon ware off). Afterall, if there's a few thousand people doing the exact same thing you can't be that big of a dork. People will snicker at the guy stealing the paper but no one is going to give him harassment like with Sidekick and Star Wars.

I think we're in the process of changing our perceptions of what we consider to be private and what people feel shame over. People put so much of their lives on-line, including a lot of very intimate details, the revelation I have when I read these details isn't "wow! how scandalous!" it's "wow! They're not embarassed to write that... hmm I guess they don't have any reason to be embarassed". Just like how clothing has changed over the years, when everyone starts showing more of themselves those hidden bits aren't quite as important.

The effect of this is we're being exposed to so many different ways of living our lives we're beginning to understand two things. First all those little things we were embarassed about aren't so bad after all. And second, the only real metric for morality is the effect is has on other people.

I think these are both good things.

Misleading video, punishment fits the crime, etc. (5, Interesting)

The Amazing Fish Boy (863897) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586886)

For those that say they are entitled or should have the right, if most people agree then there is no reason to be ashamed. If most people don't agree then maybe you need to reassess whether or not you should be ashamed. I'm betting some will disagree with me. If you can provide me an example of where I might be wrong I'm certainly willing to think about it.
Are you saying the majority is always in the right? I can think of a few examples where the majority would deem an act "shameful" that shouldn't really be. Stealing a newspaper is (in most cases) shameful, as is not cleaning up after your dog. But what about, for example, getting rejected when asking someone out?

Furthermore, there is the issue of a mistaken act. Think of Seinfield where Jerry's girlfriend sees him scratching his nose in his car. From her angle it looks like he's picking his nose. Should that go on these sites?

Finally, even with shameful acts, there is the idea that the punishment should fit the crime. What if you stumble home drunk, piss on your car, and collapse in your doorway. Now, first of all, that's pretty pathetic, and you probably deserve ridicule. But that ridicule should come from friends and neighbours. Should that video go online, where your employer might see it? Does it have your name on it? What if it affects future employment opportunities?

I don't think it's as clear cut as "don't do something you'd be ashamed to do."

Re:Misleading video, punishment fits the crime, et (2, Insightful)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586984)

"Are you saying the majority is always in the right? I can think of a few examples where the majority would deem an act "shameful" that shouldn't really be. Stealing a newspaper is (in most cases) shameful, as is not cleaning up after your dog. But what about, for example, getting rejected when asking someone out? "

Why would getting rejected when asking someone out be shameful? That strikes me as a self image problem. So that's one attempt at an example, do you have others?

"Finally, even with shameful acts, there is the idea that the punishment should fit the crime. What if you stumble home drunk, piss on your car, and collapse in your doorway. Now, first of all, that's pretty pathetic, and you probably deserve ridicule. But that ridicule should come from friends and neighbours. Should that video go online, where your employer might see it? Does it have your name on it? What if it affects future employment opportunities? "

I'll agree with pathetic but I can't agree with the part about deserving ridicule. Deserving empathy, sympathy, and HELP come to mind first. If it affects future employment opportunities then maybe it will promote a change in behavior. Realistically, it's unlikely an interviewer would assume anything other than "hey, this guy kinda looks like the guy in that drunken video I saw in the web".

Re:Misleading video, punishment fits the crime, et (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17587488)

Realistically, it's unlikely an interviewer would assume anything other than "hey, this guy kinda looks like the guy in that drunken video I saw in the web".


Short hop from that to using Google to see if any available videos/images/etc on the potential employee. Something you and others have ignored is the complete frameup. Lots of ways to accomplish such, from creative editing to spiking your drink. "Hey everyone, check out this shot of alshithead in bed with a 12 year old." Remember now, you shouldn't have been doing that to get caught!

Ask your elders what they would have thought of this if it had existed when their 57 Chevy was just a rockin with the windows all steamed up. Well, they shouldn't have been doing that you say? You have any idea how easy it would be to make that happen without anyone in the care? The world is too full of pratical jokers and vindicative people to rate this kind of a thing as not a problem.

Videos can go both ways, they can persecute someone or even save them. Google for how Larry Flynt saved John Delorean with some video he got hold of with evidence that the FBI forced Delorean to smuggle cocaine into the US and then arrested him for it. Now think about this, what if only video of Delorean actually committing the crime had existed? He shouldn't have cooperated and done it? Read the history better, they told him they were going to kill his daughter if he didn't do it. What would you do?

Re:Misleading video, punishment fits the crime, et (2, Insightful)

inviolet (797804) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587028)

Well said.

There is another angle to the "punishment should fit the crime" point, and that is this: the internet's memory is too long. The old-fashioned kind of shame was visited upon the offender by eyewitnesses, and after a while the incident would be forgotten. Nor could their memories of the incident be accurately spread to non-witnesses. And that was usually sufficient.

Not so with YouTube.

Hell, let's expand on that drunk thing (1)

Travoltus (110240) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587562)

Finally, even with shameful acts, there is the idea that the punishment should fit the crime. What if you stumble home drunk, piss on your car, and collapse in your doorway. Now, first of all, that's pretty pathetic, and you probably deserve ridicule. But that ridicule should come from friends and neighbours. Should that video go online, where your employer might see it? Does it have your name on it? What if it affects future employment opportunities?

How about I sit within surveillance distance of any party and start filming drunken behavior and post out of context clips.

Dude throws up whenever he's around a woman (hello, Dna2?), news on Youtube @11, oh yeah I forgot to mention - he was drunk at a party, and no one knows who I (the cameraman) am because I thoroughly washed and scrubbed all potential personal details from the video and posted it using some future high bandwidth version of http://www.boxofprox.com./ [www.boxofprox.com] So much for a libel suit.

Good one about the nose scratching thing.

The devastating plans that can come from exploiting youtube this way are just in their infancy. In a year you will see terrors that will freeze your soul and make you a friggin hermit.

Stock up on red utility tape now.

Public space, public faces (2, Funny)

symbolset (646467) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586894)

Recording what people do in public is, er, in the public domain*.

* This bikini cam brought to you by the Ft. Lauderdale Chamber of Commerce. Visit scenic South Florida!

Re:No problem? (5, Interesting)

LionKimbro (200000) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586902)

Well, there are those situations where society is wrong, and needs to be called on it.

Will society be responsive? That's the question.

If society is not responsive when society is wrong, then this is horrific and terrible and should be opposed.

If society is responsive, then we should welcome our new neighborly overlords.

Example: "Women shouldn't be allowed to vote." Suppose we had this high technology, and it's early 1900's. You and your subversive friend are having a discussion, and whisper that you think women should be able to vote. Obviously, you are trying to create a subversive cell movement; And unfortunately for you, someone with a microphone and a camera caught it, and posted it online. You are visibly and painfully ostracized from society. Anyone who thought at least some bit of sympathy for your way of thinking either changes their mind (against you,) or decides to stay quiet. Because a critical mass of people are able to express their opinion, society is incapable of changing, and the passages of perspective [communitywiki.org] are blocked.

Will society be responsive in our future environment? We do not know. It seems reasonable to believe that the future may resemble a panopticon, [wikipedia.org] but that piece of evidence alone doesn't tell us enough; We don't know what balancing forces [usemod.com] may exist.

But, anyways: There's an example of how the system you described might be flawed.

Re:No problem? (1)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587090)

Fantastic point about a "critical mass" being needed! That's why I asked for examples counter to what I stated. I felt there was an angle I was missing but couldn't put my finger on it. I guess the critical mass has to come from a critical mass of subversives. Think about how Victorian times changed to where we are now. From what I read of history it's not that everyone espoused Victorian ethics, it's that they kept their non-Victorian ethics hidden from view of the general public until people started to realize that it was okay to loosen up.

Re:No problem? (1)

versiondub (694793) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587552)

"it's not that everyone espoused Victorian ethics, it's that they kept their non-Victorian ethics hidden from view of the general public until people started to realize that it was okay to loosen up." Okay, I'm far too lazy to get the gist of your previous argument(s), but singling out this post---Cultural phenomena come and go, true. Their effect, however on the human psyche and derivative societies hundreds of years into the future is their true significance. Firstly, it is unfair to argue against the very real, tactile hurt that arrives to someone after public humiliation. I concede that some forms of it are deserved, but to venture down a path that subverts real, present experience and effect for some vague, optimistic view about human society in general, you are ambivalent. It is ambivalence, not zeal and xenophobia that enabled the rise of George Bush or Vladimir Putin or Hitler (forgive my use of the tired cliche). A society that guards against orwellian, fascist visions of the future must be vigorous in defending a man's right to privacy. I feel like I've responded to more points than exist in this post, but you'll have to excuse me. I think you're very smart and obviously well-read but you're espousing the sort of "I don't care, it doesn't really matter in the big picture" attitude that discounts and ignores things that ought not be.

Re:No problem? (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587548)

Consider the flip side of this, though. Back when communism was collapsing in east germany, I remember seeing the crowds marching in Leipzig, and they were chanting Wir bleiben hier! ("we're staying here"). Before that time, most East Germans just wanted to escape to the west. After that point, they realized that they were being ruled by the will of a minority, and that was game over for the commies in Germany. What the thugs were most afraid of in East Germany, and what the Red Dynasty, the Saudi kleptocracy, the Burmese military oligarchy, the Castro dictaorship, and every other criminal regime around the world is most afraid of, is quick and effective internal communication.

So, in the scenario you describe above, your hypothetical suffragettes are rather like the samizdat authors who hid in the shadows during the communist nightmare. If they get exposed, then it sucks to be them, but isn't there also the effect of other people wondering why it's so important to them that they take that risk? Eventually, despite arrests, harassment, and physical attacks, the suffragettes convinced the USA to let women vote.

-jcr

Re:No problem? (1)

JanneM (7445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586908)

Mostly my worry would not be documenting "shameful" behavior in itself, but being inaccurate about it, and essentially punishing people that have not actually done anything wrong. It can range from taking information out of context (film their dog pooping on the street and cut before you see them conscientiously pick it all up) to completely made-up accusations.

Of course, as mean and narrow-minded people tend to be today, it's probably only a matter of time before so many of us are added to so many "accusation" websites - rightly or not - that it'll just end up as noise. When everybody seems to be the devil incarnate if you do a search on them, the information ceases to have any prospective value anymore. And of course that greatly helps the small minority of people that really do have something to be shameful about; nobody's going to care if a possible pornographer (or rapist, or pedophile) moves into the neighbourhood since any such accusations more than likely are false, and you'd find the same kind of misinformation on two-thirds of all residents anyway.

Noise is not just useless data, it degrades the real data as well. In this case, I think it is a good thing since it effectively restores privacy again.

Re:No problem? (1)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587142)

I agree wholeheartedly. The biggest danger of all in this is false accusation. And, you're probably right about the noise issue. The value of such sites will almost certainly be degraded to no value at all once the amount of information available becomes too large and broad.

Re:No problem? (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587612)

The biggest danger of all in this is false accusation.

I concur, and if I were running such a web site I would not allow anonymous denunciations.

There's a reason why we don't allow anonymous accusers in criminal proceedings.

-jcr

No problem?-Mob A-peel. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17587314)

"Mostly my worry would not be documenting "shameful" behavior in itself, but being inaccurate about it, and essentially punishing people that have not actually done anything wrong."

You mean like how slashdot does it? Deciding on the rightness or wrongness based on the "documented shameful" behaviour? Even stooping so far as to give out personal (or not so personal) info and telling others to "/." their phones, E-mail, and (in one case their mail box with phony magazine subscriptions).

"And of course that greatly helps the small minority of people that really do have something to be shameful about; nobody's going to care if a possible pornographer (or rapist, or pedophile) moves into the neighbourhood since any such accusations more than likely are false, and you'd find the same kind of misinformation on two-thirds of all residents anyway."

The boy who cried wolf...one too many times. Keep that in mind slashdot, next time you convene the court of public opinion.

"Noise is not just useless data, it degrades the real data as well. In this case, I think it is a good thing since it effectively restores privacy again."

Alright everyone, go back to whatever petty crimes you were engaged in. [amazon.com] Cover has been restored.

Pick up your frigging dog shit!!! (-1, Troll)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586914)

One site documents locations where people have failed to pick up after their dogs.

I won 3 large dogs - a newf, a st. bernard, and a large mutt - and I pick up. All the time. I don't know how many times people with their "rat-on-a-rope" dogs pretend they don't see their little precious socker-ball-dogs (because your first urge is to kick them) taking a dump. What cities should do is offer to split the resulting fines 50/50.

The same could be done for dogs running off-lead.

... and Jehovah's Witnesses going door-to-door distrbing the peace ...

... and cats running loose ...

... and people dumpng their car ashtrays on the streets ...

Re:Pick up your frigging dog shit!!! (0, Troll)

Yartrebo (690383) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586996)

"... and Jehovah's Witnesses going door-to-door distrbing the peace ..."

Annoying as they are, they pale in comparison to billboards and the likes. Get rid of the big and permanent stuff, and then focus on the more minor and transient nuisances.

Re:Pick up your frigging dog shit!!! (1)

Anonymous McCartneyf (1037584) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587070)

Unfortunately, the Jehovah's Witnesses are covered under the First Amendment. But in communities where all door-to-door activity is banned (hey, that may be a predator working the doors!), they can posted and shamed right along with the Amway reps, Avon ladies, and Girl Scouts.
Disclaimer: I don't like Jehovah's Witnesses. I do like Avon ladies and Girl Scouts.

Re:Pick up your frigging dog shit!!! (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587598)

Jehovah's Witnesses are covered under the First Amendment.

Well, yes and no. Saying what they want to say is their right, but coming onto my property is not. So, if I post a "no soliciting" sign, and a prosyltute comes up to my door to try to recruit me, they are told in no uncertain terms to leave and never come back. To date, I haven't even had to raise my voice to get rid of them. If one of them were to persist, then a call to the police and a restraining order would likely follow.

-jcr

Re:Pick up your frigging dog shit!!! (1)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587712)

In most municipalities cats are allowed to run loose. They don't form packs and eat small children like dogs do.

Re:No problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17586960)

Let's say you have an argument with someone... lover, clerk, waitress, what have you. I don't think you want your name, address, and unflattering picture posted on some web site, searchable through Google, with a long-winded one-sided account of what happened and what an incredible dick you are. Some people will think, sure it could be an exaggeration but let's say 30 percent of that is true...

You were doing so well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17587036)

...but then you had to go and call "first post." THAT is something to be ashamed of. The typing of those two words made your entire post seem more contrived and less intellectually significant.

When people make an intelligent first post without pointing out that it is first post, they seem thoughtful and genuine. Once people call first post, they seem like dorks who just want attention.

Keep that one private.

Re:You were doing so well... (1)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587194)

Well thanks for your opinion. I was pretty proud of making what I thought was a "thoughtful and genuine" first post. Even a serious topic can stand a little humor.

All your videos are belong to us!

Re:No problem? (5, Insightful)

GreggBz (777373) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587374)

I guess I don't think like you, not anymore.

A few years ago one warm summer day, I got fuming mad at some woman who was going rather slow, worrying about something inside her station wagon and could not decide on a lane. I remember this vividly. Latter, honest to god, I saw her checking out at K-Mart. She was buying gatoraide for some reason and chatting with the clerk. She started crying. It turns out she had just moved to the city where I live, someone had stolen her pocket book, she could not find it in here car and she was having a really bad day. I made it a point to apologize for my behavior when we were both driving, cause you see, I was the real asshole.

You don't walk in these peoples shoes, please don't arbitrarily demonize them. Nobody ever gets to know anyone these days. I guess we are to busy hiding behind our gadgets. Really, how well do you know your neighbor? It's easy to judge someone badly, it's a little harder to get to know your fellow humans and see them for what the are, human. People are not just an inconvenience in your self-absorbed little world. Yea, I know, it's scary to say "hello, how are you, I'm such-and-such..." but you'll feel better if you truly live and let live.

Re:No problem? (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587792)

Scenario: Everyday you get out for work and come back, you find some dog crapped in the grass of your garden.

No... I can't really think of any acceptable reasons for allowing this.

in other news.. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17586728)

Ceiling cat is watching you MASTURBATE.

TP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17586758)

Third prost

no problem there (0)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586760)

the best way to get ppl to stop doing something that's wrong or bad or undesirable or innapropriate is to have millions of people laugh at them or get pissed at them after putting it on the internet. My neighbors are freakin weirdos and I'm pretty sure I've heard them burying dead bodies in the backyard at night like on The Burbs so I am so getting out my camera!

Well said, ILuvRamen (2, Interesting)

Travoltus (110240) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587330)

How about this one.

One guy comes up on you and starts trash talking you for no reason, and you get pissed off and cuss back at them. Someone else, their teammate, is filming you.

Tomorrow, the part where you cussed back at them, is put on Youtube, but not the part where they provoked you.

Now those millions of people you mentioned, believe that you're wrong or bad or undesirable or innapropriate.

I know. I did this to an obnoxious jock way back in college before youtube was a twinkle in God's eye. Back then USENET was youtube.

Sounds Like Fun (3, Interesting)

mfh (56) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586764)

But please, for the survival of the human race... get a real job!

Everyone wants to cash in on the latest gold rush, but isn't it time we rewarded excellence instead of stupidity? Although there must be some form of corrective benefit for being exposed as a petty thief. (although eventually we'll be living in the society where you can't misstep once or you become suddenly exiled from your own life)

Balance? Complacency? A lack of appropriate countermeasures? Who knows how this is going to play out, but many of us will watch it nonetheless!

Re:Sounds Like Fun (1)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587742)

Eventually the nuisance factor will rise so high that "community" sites that allow anonymous, psuedo-anonymous, and public participation will be required to police their content. Youtube will be held liable for the damaging content that they host, even though it was posted by Pete1999. Either that or they will require real validation of the identities of the posters.

Dog crap? (1)

jdavidb (449077) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586774)

One site documents locations where people have failed to pick up after their dogs.

Awesome. I've been waiting for just such a service for years.

I was one step removed from actually mailing the stuff to my fellow apartment dwellers in the mid 1990s. I was so tired of slogging through it on my way down to my car which I could never park in my assigned spot because they took it from us.

Re:Dog crap? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17586906)

I was so tired of slogging through it on my way down to my car which I could never park in my assigned spot because they took it from us.

The solution to that problem is a baseball bat to their windows. If anyone asks questions or calls the police, simply explain that since it's in your parking spot, it must be your car.

Re:Dog crap? (4, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586962)

Why not cure both problems - pick up the dog shit they didn't pick up (use a plastic bag) and "fill up" the door handles of their car that they so inconsiderately parked in your spot.

If they "discover" this at night when its dark, so much the better ... shit happens ...

Just remember to post the video :-)

Re:Dog crap? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17586974)

How long do you think the windows are going to last in your car, even if the cops are dumb enough to side with you?

How will they find me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17587130)

Our apartment parking lot was crowded. People used to squeeze into a gap that wasn't intended for car parking ... and would make it extremely difficult for me to get my car out. I started leaving an uncracked egg sitting on the hood of their car. The message was clear: "I could easily break this on your car, but I'm being nice and just warning you." There were no fingerprints and no witnesses (it was an underground garage). Worked like a charm. They were blocking more than one parking space, so it wasn't clear who was mad at them.

Re:Dog crap? (3, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587486)

The Chicago solution to that problem is a hose and cold weather. People rarely park in the same place after they've had to chip through 3" of ice to get into the car.

-jcr

yeah, yipee, and other happly expletives (4, Interesting)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586776)

For too long, society in large part has not been focussed on what other people think, rather it has been several decades of the ME generation. If I had already installed my X10 motion activated cameras, perhaps I could have caught the little fscks that egged my car within a week of moving to a very nice new neighborhood.

I really don't think that there is anything wrong with someone physical, and personally filming people doing bad things and posting them to the web. Its little to no different than them telling their friends, or passing the gossip around the local grocery store... just a little more convincing :)

The point here is simple; its a bit of advice: if you don't want to have people on youtube seeing you pee off the back patio, don't pee off the back patio.

Sure, there are other cases where things seem to be exaggerated, but for most of this, its not, and it is good to see the community cleaning up in their own back yards.

Now, if this is from police cameras that are perusing neighborhoods on a regular basis, I'm going to shout out against that. But if your neighbor catches you doing something bad, sorry, you shouldn't have been doing that... 'you plays, you pays' as the saying goes.

Re:yeah, yipee, and other happly expletives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17587200)

If you're the kind of guy who's inclined to set up motion activated cameras and complain about "the ME generation" in the first place, you deserve to have your car egged.

Re:yeah, yipee, and other happly expletives (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587362)

Actually, I wasn't inclined to set up the cameras until the egging incident... are you a moron? The eggs on my car added 15% value to it. It was just inconvenient, and it is a case of people not respecting basic rights of others, specifically, My rights. You probably need to lay off the pipe for a bit.

"happly expletives" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17587438)

expletive
noun
an oath or swear word.
I'm not sure that expletives are generally of a jovial nature.

haha.. Good. (1)

X-treme-LLama (178013) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586784)

First of all, I get something to laugh at. Entertainment is good. And secondly people might actually start acting more civilized? GREAT! Shame SHOULD be a check on social behavior. If you're ashamed, that's your brain telling you that you're "actin' a fool" and you should probably correct the behavior.

If you're doing it in public, you either don't care, or you deserve to look like a jackass/moron. Not to mention I'd love to find out who's stealing my newspaper.

Re:haha.. Good. (1)

nernie (1050594) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587480)

I didn't RTFA, but wait... are these sites indexing content by the location where it was filmed? If not, is there any real chance this will affect anybody's behavior? I could care less if a few random people from who-knows-where see me doing something moderately dumb. I doubt most people even will know that they are in one of these videos.

Re:haha.. Good. (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587676)

Shame SHOULD be a check on social behavior.

Exactly!

People tend to forget that there are all kinds of ways to bring pressure to bear when someone is behaving badly or stupidly, and that leads to stupid shit like state legislators trying to outlaw teenager's fashion choices. [bbc.co.uk] The law is a very blunt instrument.

Incidentally, I would very much like to see shame used to regulate even more egregious examples of legislators wasting our money. [heritage.org]

-jcr

It seems to me... (4, Insightful)

ChePibe (882378) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586810)

...that it's fairly simple to avoid becoming a target of these websites:

Pick up after your dog.

Park correctly.

Don't take things that don't belong to you.

I know that if people in my apartment complex did this, we could all live happier lives, particularly the picking up after dogs bit.

Don't want to have a video of you stealing your neighbor's paper show up on YouTube? Don't steal your neighbor's paper.

Re:It seems to me... (1)

arun_s (877518) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587004)

What you say is fair enough, roughly summarised as 'if you haven't done anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about anyway'.
But what about the privacy issues involved? Would you like it if your creepy next door neighbour was filming you for a couple of hours every day, just waiting for you to make a wrong move? How about him selling a month's footage of your activities to any 'interested' party? He's got a noble excuse in case he's caught doing the recording, but you never what happens behind your back afterwards.
People are of course free to do what they want in public places, but I sure as hell wouldn't feel comfortable about being recorded even if I'm doing nothing wrong.

If I'm not mistaken... (1)

ChePibe (882378) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587110)

The point of this is to make people uncomfortable.

If you're in public - and, in the case of most of these problems, not even on your own property - your expectation of privacy is zero. Zilch. Therefore, act as if people were watching you because, odds are, they are.

Maybe we could use some more shame in our society. Anything to silence the Britney Spears and Paris Hiltons of the world.

Re:It seems to me... (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587158)

What you describe is called invasion of privacy. Prove it and you have a court case. Anyone that is spying on you is invading your privacy. If they catch you by accident doing something that is against the public morals or public decency, that is your problem. If they are filming you for hours each day, that is stalking and/or invasion.

Re:It seems to me... (1)

sharkey (16670) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587204)

I know that if people in my apartment complex did this, we could all live happier lives, particularly the picking up after dogs bit.

Especially in the laundry room.

Re:It seems to me... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17587492)

Don't go into an abortion clinic.

Don't vent about your horrible boss over beers with your coworker.

Don't break an unjust law.

Don't get angry and swear at the jackass filming you... ...and for God's sake, don't ever make a mistake.

Good (1)

JayTech (935793) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586840)

Good. The more people that realize they may be being filmed in public, the less likely they will be to act in a reckless manner. If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide? The line does get drawn at the borders of my property, though... that's another story.

Re:Good (1)

Bones3D_mac (324952) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587784)

"If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

It's that kind of thinking that's been destroying our country's struggle of over 200 years to prevent the ideology of "guilt before proven innocent" from taking over, when our country's government is supposed to serve the people, rather than persecute the people.

If a cop can be there (2, Informative)

Snarfangel (203258) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586864)

...a camera can be there. As long as it's a public area and a police officer can be there without warrant, or a private area where the owner consents, I don't see the problem. Only when it's somewhere where the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy should there be any question as to whether it should be tolerated.

Re:If a cop can be there (2, Interesting)

Bones3D_mac (324952) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587710)

Aren't there certain laws about stationary, always-on cameras that dictates how one can use them? Despite the fact that there is no expectation of privacy in public, specifically pointing a fixed camera at another person's house for the sole purpose of monitoring their activity is probably illegal in a lot of states. (Especially since law enforcement officials used to require a warrant for such activities.)

Somehow, I doubt putting a tiny "you are being watched" sticker in your window is going to save your ass in court.

So CCTV is OK? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586904)

It's interesting that so far, most of the posts here are saying "What's the problem? Don't do stupid and shameful things, no problems", yet wherever the issue of CCTV Brit style comes up, it's nothing but outrage. What's the difference?

Re:So CCTV is OK? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17586958)

Slashdotters are hypocrites. It's the same in stories about tor and the pirate bay - everyone praises them for the anonymity they provide while ignoring anonymous cowards.

Re:So CCTV is OK? (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587000)

The real problem with the cctv systems in britain is that they haven't resulted in a drop in crime - quite the opposite. What works is police on the streets, not in a station looking at video cameeras.

Also, there's a difference between a camera that is recording everything, 24 hours a day, indiscriminately, of everyone, and you taking a video of someone breaking a law.

The first one breaks the concept of "anonymity in public places", where people have an expectation that, if they aren't doing anything wrong, people will mind their own business.

Re:So CCTV is OK? (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587700)

The real problem with the cctv systems in britain is that they haven't resulted in a drop in crime
They have however brought more justice against those doing crimes.

Re:So CCTV is OK? (2, Insightful)

LunarCrisis (966179) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587122)

It's interesting that so far, most of the posts here are saying "What's the problem? Don't do stupid and shameful things, no problems", yet wherever the issue of CCTV Brit style comes up, it's nothing but outrage. What's the difference?

The difference is that in this case the public has access to this material, which causes much less concentration of power (bad in my books) than it being restricted to one centralized organization such as the government. Like it or not, as technology progresses, physical privacy is on the way out. I'd much rather lose my privacy to everyone than lose it only to the government.

Re:So CCTV is OK? (1)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587468)

Like it or not, as technology progresses, physical privacy is on the way out. I'd much rather lose my privacy to everyone than lose it only to the government.

All this means is that, instead of just a Big Brother, you have a bunch of Little Brothers nipping at your heels recording everything which Big Brother can use however he wants.

The loss of privacy should concern you no matter if it's the government or your neighbor down the street that's doing the recording.

Re:So CCTV is OK? (1)

Anonymous McCartneyf (1037584) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587152)

Many of the British CCTV cameras are run by the British government in hopes of catching criminals. This has many aware Slashdotters feeling like Big Brother is watching them. The sentiments against those cameras spread to all the other CCTV cameras in the UK.
On the other hand, in America, most of the CCTV cameras are in the hands of businesses of various sizes. They also hope to catch criminals, but there is an intermediate step. Americans rarely object to them: we just note the "Smile! You're being watched!" signs and go about our biz...

Re:So CCTV is OK? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587482)

It's different when it's the government. With lots of cameras owned by various private entities scattered around, the only way this is useful to the government is if the police get a warrant for all the cameras in the vicinity of a crime and get those camera owners to provide them with the tapes/data, which is cumbersome. Lots of cameras owned by the government and run by a centralized authority is another ball of wax.

here too? (1)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586920)

including a return to shame as a check on social behavior

My local newspaper does this, they have people send in pictures of local eyesores. My neighbors never sent in pics of me, but they did call the police to complain about my unregistered vehicle. Its illegal to have an unregistered vehicle, unless its in a garage or you a cop(can you say class warfare, apparently cause registered cars look much better... Anyway, someone should start a list of noisy neighbors who should mind their own fucking business.

Re:here too? (0, Troll)

Yartrebo (690383) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587174)

Amen to that. What I hate even worse are the laws restricting clothelines and many easy to grow plants from your property. I personally like dandelions, but if I ever dared grow them I would be running afoul of the local law.

Re:here too? (1)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587280)

What I hate even worse are the laws restricting clothelines and many easy to grow plants from your property. I personally like dandelions, but if I ever dared grow them I would be running afoul of the local law.

They have that no clothesline law two towns over. Basically they are saying, you must use fossil fuels to dry your clothes because clotheslines are an eye sore. Politicians pass these laws, then talk about what a great land of freedom this is, it makes me sick.

I wonder if you painted a clothesline or unregistered car and called it art, if you could get a judge to see it as protected speech. If not, maybe a ten foot picture of a dandelion on your front yard.

Try talking to them. (1)

robably (1044462) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587092)

If your neighbour is doing something antisocial you can talk to them and sort it out. It's depressing that so many people here think it's an acceptable response to publicly humiliate them.

Re:Try talking to them. (1)

QuasiEvil (74356) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587206)

Sure, talking does work... sometimes. However, it seems perfectly reasonable that if you do something in public, then there's no problem with presenting the evidence publicly. It's called escalation, and you have to figure out what the appropriate level of response is considering the act and the generic psyche of the perp.

Re:Try talking to them. (1)

robably (1044462) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587340)

However, it seems perfectly reasonable that if you do something in public, then there's no problem with presenting the evidence publicly.
No. If you do something in public then you did it in public and that was that. But recording and distributing a public act is entirely different, and in this case the motive is malicious. You're saying that it's fine to humiliate someone in order to solve a problem, but if you actually wanted to solve the problem you'd talk to them and sort it out - the only reason you'd humiliate someone is because you want to see them suffer, and you're deceiving yourself if you try to justify it as being in the public good.

This really works! (2, Informative)

stoneycoder (1020591) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587094)

I was in an unfortunate scenario a while back, I had to move back in with my parents for a month or two. And my teenage little sister is quite disgusting, doesn't flush the toilet, leaves trash all over the house, etc, and expects everyone else to clean it for her, it was getting to me. My attempts using normal avenues of compromise to remedy the situation were thawrted.

So I installed a keystroke logger on her laptop while she was at school, and waited til it captured her myspace password. I then proceeded to post bulletins in her name on her own profile with attached pictures of the disgusting messes. Oh man she was pissed, but guess what, a lot of the annoying stuff stopped, probably for fear of the repercussions. I know, its kind of an evil thing to do, but myspace is the only thing your average highschoolers care about these days.

Re:This really works! (1)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587238)

Wow! You committed a felony because she doesn't flush the toilet or clean up after herself! Too cool. Actually it is pretty cool but I couldn't have done that to my sister or brother because they might call the cops as a form of oneupmanship.

As always, SF saw this coming (2, Informative)

rah1420 (234198) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587146)

Who remembers I See You [fictionwise.com] by Damon Knight? I still remember that little story from a Daw anthology. Creeped me out.

The Snoop Next Door (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17587160)

The Snoop next door is also bustin' caps in yo' ass, beotch.

Is shame still an effective deterrent? (4, Insightful)

hasbeard (982620) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587360)

To what sense is shame still an effective deterrent? To feel shame requires that one sense that in some way his actions are socially unacceptable. As the boundaries of our culture seemed to have been stretched further and further, what was once unacceptable is now acceptable. For example, once homosexual behavior was deemed unacceptable. Now, it seems at times, homosexuality is almost a "status symbol." Increasingly, rudeness seems to be tolerated. Right wing and Left wing political figures and commentators insult one another with abandon. It seems to me that there are an increasing number of people who seem unable to sense when they have crossed the boundaries (or else they don't care).

Re:Is shame still an effective deterrent? (1)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587412)

You have hit upon a key point. You can't shame someone for behavior for which they aren't ashamed and that boundary seems to expand daily. Common courtesy seems to be as dead as common sense.

Fair game: Its all in public (2, Insightful)

atcurtis (191512) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587666)

What people do in public becomes public property.

If someone acts like an arse in public, should not be surprised to find it posted on a website.

If they don't want anyone to post them doing disgraceful things in public, they should either refrain from doing something which people would find offensive... or if they are a true sociopath, they can always murder all the witnesses before they can post it online.

I would so dearly like to attach a video camera to my car, perhaps with a 30 second buffer, so that when I press the button to record an event, everything up to 30 seconds before the event is also recorded. Would much prefer a good quality video camera so that license plates are clearly visible.

I seem to recall that a few years ago, a man in Japan was fined for speeding based upon video evidence posted online...

thats why i never go outside (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17587786)

thanks, i'm already a shy-antisocial-recluse-hermit, now i have more reason to be a paranoid-shy-antisocial-recluse-hermit..
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...