Revenge !!!!!! - have you experienced it or have your children?

lostinrates

fairy_lights wrote: »

I bet if the mobile technology we have now though had been around when you were young people would have taken nude pics back then too..
.

People did. ( albeit not with digital technology) . Thorsoak is not that ancient. .

Some keen photographers had little home dark rooms, some were probably for 'artistic shots'

FireWyrm

Tropez wrote: »

A few years ago a company called Blizzard Entertainment, makers of video games such as World of Warcraft, announced that they would be enforcing the use of real-names to post on their forums.

I'm intrigued. How were they going to do that?

Tropez wrote: »

There was much outcry among their subscribers who felt this was a poor move with possible security hazards. One of Blizzard's employees dismissed concerns and posted his real name. Within minutes, details emerged of that person's home address, his wife's home address, where his kids went to school and even his criminal record. Unsurprisingly, Blizzard switched their policy.

Well yes, but I presume membership to this site was not compulsory nor was it the only MMORPG available at the time. Go somewhere else until they change their policy.

Tropez wrote: »

If you think that cyber bullying is simply nasty posts on a Facebook page, you're sorely mistaken. Real cyber bullying is a campaign of abuse aimed at not only the victim but those who are in some way linked to the victim - family, friends, colleagues, even their employer or teachers.

Bullying only works if the bully can observe your distress. By simply not engaging and going dark, they cant fulfull this basic requirement and cease to experience enjoyment...they'll lose interest and stop, and quickly too.

Tropez wrote: »

Shutting down a Facebook page does not stop somebody else from contacting one's mother, employer, making threats towards kids etc. The sole purpose is to use every little thing that somebody could find out about an individual (and that's a lot) to intrude on their life outside of the virtual world.

Again...go dark. Do not respond. End of story.

Tropez wrote: »

And we live in an age where for some it is simply necessary to maintain social network profiles.

No, it really isnt. There was life before the internet. There were things called letters and there was even this whole mechanism for sending them.

Tropez wrote: »

Authors, especially, are required to do so because it is some of the only promotion that they can afford and that makes them great targets for it.

So, are a lot of authors bullied?

Tropez wrote: »

Should somebody be forced to give up a career because of the behaviour of a minority of vile people by shutting down one of their few promotional resources? I don't think so.

Of course not, and for those cases, there are perfectly adequate laws that can be brought to bear.

You sound like you have a personal experience which is clouding your judgement somewhat.

pjcox2005

FireWyrm wrote: »

Why, is simply deleting your facebook account too simple a solution to ocurre to people? In the words of Pat Morita in Karate Kid....best defense, not be there.

I also disagree with the idea of simply deleting facebook and therefore bullying is over. The bullying has impacted on someones life in that way, as they can no longer use a common form of media to interact with friends and family and therefore lose out as a result. I'd also guess it doesn't stop as others would comment in person about messages being spread/left about them.

If you had a favorite place (pub, church group etc) or hobby, and you started being bullied there, whether through verbal actions or posters being put up, would you just say that's fine, I'll leave the group and go somewhere else? What if they targeted your life in an area or workplace, would you simply give that up and relocate, as its effectively the same thing, after all best defense, not be there?

Tropez

FireWyrm wrote: »

I'm intrigued. How were they going to do that?

Well Blizzard have your real name on file if you are subscribed to their services. Rather than use a "character" name, they would instead display the name registered to your account.

Well yes, but I presume membership to this site was not compulsory nor was it the only MMORPG available at the time. Go somewhere else until they change their policy.

Of course not but at the time it had over 10,000,000 subscribers globally and even today is the single largest MMORPG on the planet. Its subscribers have no doubt put a lot of effort into their characters, as well as money into Blizzard's coffers.

Bullying only works if the bully can observe your distress. By simply not engaging and going dark, they cant fulfull this basic requirement and cease to experience enjoyment...they'll lose interest and stop, and quickly too.

Again, simplistic. Bullies who are not getting the attention they crave resort to other methods, such as contacting associates of their victim. Some of them don't even care if they get attention or not, they just enjoy what they're doing.

Again...go dark. Do not respond. End of story.

Simplistic. Wrong.

No, it really isnt. There was life before the internet. There were things called letters and there was even this whole mechanism for sending them.

Actually, it is. You may not see that and good for you but it simply isn't the case for everyone. More and more business is done online. Online recruitment networks are set to surpass brick and mortar ones very soon.

So, are a lot of authors bullied?

Apparently so, yes. There's a whole community (of the 4chan variety) who seem to have set themselves up to cause grief to authors. There's another community set up to try and identify the bullies. Certainly several authors have been quite vocal about the abuse and harassment they have received.

Of course not, and for those cases, there are perfectly adequate laws that can be brought to bear.

And surely that law should be applied to each case and not simply force someone to restrict their own activities and interfere with their own life? Why should the answer for some be to "go dark"? The law should apply equally.

You sound like you have a personal experience which is clouding your judgement somewhat.

Nope, but I work in the security business. I've dealt with actual harassment cases, which included online campaigns. It is nasty stuff, even if you think it can be solved with a few clicks of a button.

Tiddlywinks

If you give someone a naked or compromising picture of yourself then you let that image out of your control.

No matter how much you trust that person there is no guarantee that they won't lose it, get burgled, get hacked etc.

If you allow such an image to be taken then you should accept the risks that come along with that action.

Your choice - you accept the consequences.

Hidden camera / photos without consent are an entirely different subject altogether.

Tropez

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

If you give someone a naked or compromising picture of yourself then you let that image out of your control.

No matter how much you trust that person there is no guarantee that they won't lose it, get burgled, get hacked etc.

If you allow such an image to be taken then you should accept the risks that come along with that action.

Your choice - you accept the consequences.

Hidden camera / photos without consent are an entirely different subject altogether.

You could apply the "accept the consequences" logic to nigh on everything.

Yes, if you take a nude picture of yourself, things could happen to it but if things do happen to it without your consent, such as public distribution, then the person who has released that image should be punished for doing so.

Tiddlywinks

Tropez wrote: »

You could apply the "accept the consequences" logic to nigh on everything.

Yes, if you take a nude picture of yourself, things could happen to it but if things do happen to it without your consent, such as public distribution, then the person who has released that image should be punished for doing so.

But... it's still out there and the risk was yours for the taking.

No photo - no possibility of loss or distribution.

People need to think through the possible consequences of their actions and not just seek to blame others when things go pear shaped.

Tropez

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

But... it's still out there and the risk was yours for the taking.

No photo - no possibility of loss or distribution.

People need to think through the possible consequences of their actions and not just seek to blame others when things go pear shaped.

But as I say, you can apply that logic to anything.

The fact is when someone shares a photograph of you that they do not have your permission to share, they are to blame. It's not seeking to blame others, it is blaming the a-hole responsible for sharing it and expecting him or her to be appropriately punished for it.

It's not quite the same, since it isn't revenge !!!!!!, but it's no more Jennifer Lawrence's fault that somebody purposely hacked into her cloud storage and posted her boobs all over Twitter and Imgur than it is the fault of an account holder who has their bank information stolen and used without permission.

System

Personally i have taken pics, however nothing in the pics can be identified as being me, and i have received pics. They're for my own personal usage, and with someone i trusted completely. If they got out i wouldn't be too bothered as like i said, nobody can prove they are actually me. As for why? Well its nice to have something to look at whilst i *amuse* myself i guess. At the end of the day we were consenting adults.

However i don't agree with the recent leaks of celeb photos. Those photos were (they thought) stored privately and should not have been hacked and leaked for the world to see. It annoys me that people are taking it on out on the peoples whos pictures were leaked, we should be angry at the people who did the hacking, and every person who looked at them should feel guilty for partaking in someone like that. I also don't agree with under 18s taking these pics as 1)it is child pornography and 2)they don't understand the implications of what might happen, and aren't mature enough to deal with the consequences.

If consenting adults choose to dot it, then that is there choice. I don't see why people should be lambasted for it. If i choose to go out and have a few drinks then get raped, is that my fault for drinking? We have such a victim blaming culture its unreal. Te onus is not on the person taking the pictures, it should be on the people who are the ones doing the wrong thing and eitehr hacking or leaking pics. Saying "oh well they shouldnt have taken them" is just siding with the perpatrators and acting like peoples bodies suddenly become public property if they dare take a picture. Its like saying "you should be ashamed of your body and keep it hidden", and if you don't we will shame you for it because we are better people than you..

[Deleted User]

Tropez wrote: »

...

Yes, if you take a nude picture of yourself, things could happen to it but if things do happen to it without your consent, such as public distribution, then the person who has released that image should be punished for doing so.

I wonder what the law is in such as case?

I believe there is a Misuse of communications Act which covers 'indecent' images being both send and received. Although, what is considered indecent is another matter.

More interestingly if you send the images who then owns the image once it leaves your hands? For example, I am sure that Google's gmail policy states that they have the right to use email content as they wish. So would they own the image?

Anyone know the law on who owns an image once it has been sent out to someone else? Would copyright law cover this?