Google: Help us! Our search engine is STUFFED FULL of your 'revenge smut' pics Google has promised it will yank from its web search results links to "revenge porn" pics – which are typically sexy snaps leaked online by jilted exes – if the subjects of the images ask nicely. The ad giant said people whose nude photos have been published without their consent will be able to file requests via an online …
How do you prove you're the target in the photo?
Suppose there was a photo of a consenting model on a website and I wanted to get at that person, what stops me pretending to be that person asking Google to take down the image? How do they prove I am (or am not) that person in the photo?
Or what if it's a case of mistaken identity?
what a stupid question.
What you do is submit another nude photo showing the same details to prove its you
i.e. make sure the same birthmarks, caesarean scars, stretchmarks are all there for comparison
Of course Google would have to keep copies of those in case the take-down was challenged
"i.e. make sure the same birthmarks, caesarean scars, stretchmarks are all there for comparison"
I have birthmarks but the rest ...
Your choice of determinants leads me to believe that you haven't considered that men could be affected by this issue.
It's unlikely anyone is going to post pics of me in the altogether: I have a small EMP device setup for deployment should the need arise.
This post has been deleted by its author
> That is a problem with society in general.
Please define which society you're talking about, because when I used to live in Southern Europe, these things you mention were well known by police, courts, judges, and (where applicable) juries, and were controlled for.
Amongst other things, that's why if you allege to be the victim of mistreatment, you can expect one or more extensive interviews with a forensic psychologist, whose job is to assess the credibility of your allegations and report to the judge. Forensic physicians are also involved if any form of physical violence is said to have occurred. It does happen that people (particularly women, granted) think it may be a good idea to spice up their divorce proceeding with a claim of mistreatment or two, until they are reminded of the penalties for perjury, at which point most reassess their strategy. Similarly, it is known that men are also vulnerable, and old people especially, and in those cases the same specialists mentioned above will add weight to the victim's claims (more often, it is social workers who first discover and report mistreatment of old and vulnerable people outside of conjugal cases).
So, careful with those disinformed opinions of yours.
This post has been deleted by its author
So, careful with those disinformed opinions of yours.
A few years back I had a friend in NZ who was in an altercation with his wife. Police were called.
The first things the police did were 1 officer call paramedics while the other started CPR on him. It was stated later in court that had the police arrived even a minute later he would've died from his injuries.
He spent several days in a coma in hospital, and recieved further charges for failing to appear in court. They were thankfully dropped.
He got life-threatening injuries, and a prison sentence.
She got the house, and to spend some time in government-funded "victim counselling".
It should've been clear from the lack of any injuries on her and the extent of injuries on him, especially defensive-type wounds to the arms, that she was the aggressor. But she's a woman, he's a guy, so he must've assaulted her or somehow been entirely at fault.
Not all men are automatically abusers, and women aren't automatically victims. Quite often (some stats suggest most often) women are the more violent. And some countries are still backwards enough/under the grip of feminism and won't recognise this.
> A few years back I had a friend in NZ who was in an altercation with his wife. Police were called.
That's an example of why I mentioned in another post that generalising statements should be qualified. Things in NZ may or may not be the same as in other parts of the world.
I draw my experience from my time in the emergency services, where we attended to many cases like the one you describe and the follow-up (e.g., as witnesses in court). You have subjective knowledge of one event; we've been involved in hundreds of those in a professional capacity, hence my comment that, at least where I worked, the system was generally fair and even-handed.
"Your choice of determinants leads me to believe that you haven't considered that men could be affected by this issue."
No - just that most men won't be bothered by nude photos of themselves (unless shown in action with a sheep or choirboy), while most women will be. I think most men would secretly be quite pleased to have photos on the internet showing their todger hanging out, its just that most - while wanting it - haven't got the nerve to do it.
Sounds like a slippery slope. Why is it OK to have nude or sexually explicit links removed, but not other stuff? Let's say you were pranked in the prom and elected queen and had a bucket of blood dropped on you and someone filmed it. That would be pretty humiliating, many would consider it worse than having naked pictures of you on the internet.
So if they remove those, what about something a little less, and a little less, and eventually I'm asking Google to remove this post because I feel bad that it received a few downvotes.
I UVd your post because I think you are making a good point but invoking the "slippery slope" mantra can lead to a dangerous fallacy eventually. I think you managed to stumble into that fallacy because the slippery slope needs to be a continuous, smooth slope with clear links between each component . However you manage to jump from nudie pics on t'tubes to Carrie - there's a pretty large disconnect there. I see where you are coming from but the article is about one and not the other.
Nice use of the slippery mountain argument structure in the second para though. That makes a pleasant counterpoint to para one.
> and eventually I'm asking Google to remove this post because I feel bad that it received a few downvotes.
Unfortunately your request for comment removal has been denied because the single downvote recorded to date may simply have been in error. A request is not considered valid unless the 'trauma threshold' of 50 has been reached, after adjustments to take into account any clickbait potential. Public removal requests such as this are rated '10' on the Streisand Scale, giving you a current VBITDA* of -9, 'be grateful for the compliment'.
*VBITDA : Votes By Internet Tards Dissing Articles
I have very little sympathy for people who knowingly posed for a nude or sexually explicate photo or video. Yes the people posting the data and those making money off are sleazy as hell, but simple common sense should tell you that relationships end, and people will act in a spiteful manner.
Don't want your naughty bits to show up online for people to frap too? DON'T LET PEOPLE TAKE THE PHOTO IN THE FIRST PLACE MORON.
> I have very little sympathy for people who knowingly posed for a nude or sexually explicate photo or video
Firstly, the word you want is "explicit", not "explicate". Elsewhere, you also misspelled "to".
Secondly, people have different expectations as to how others, and particularly those who are emotionally close to them, would behave. It would be a very sad world indeed one in which everyone distrusted everyone else, even their friends and partners. I'd much rather take being fucked over by a friend or girlfriend than being a Billy no mates.
Thirdly, even if someone would be a "moron" as you put it, they still need to have some sort of recourse to help them out of whatever predicament they might have got themselves in.
It doesn't cost that much to show some sympathy to others, even if you do not agree with them. You may even be rewarded in kind, instead of being thought of as an arrogant idiot.
>>People do things that they wouldn't otherwise.
Sure do. Should we feel pity for idiots who get drunk and sleep with someone they otherwise would? Hell no. No-one forced them to drink, just like no-one forced them to pose for nudes.
I don't care how high on endorphins you are, if you think that your nudes are secure you're a fool. Don't do stupid shit and it wont come back to haunt you.
What? It's right here: https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/submit-url
And it wasn't hard to find at all, I just googled it.
so if a politician is "caught out" can he (or she) get the "offensive" material removed simply because it contains nudity? How about "revenge email" or "revenge text"? or anything else once sent consentually but now potentially damaging to one's reputation or career?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
