Al Franken to FBI: We need MORE revenge smut arrests Prominent US Senator Al Franken is calling on the FBI to do more to fight "revenge porn" sites. Franken (D-MN), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in an open letter (PDF) to FBI director James Comey that he wants authorities to do more to track down and prosecute those who share imtimate photos without the …
So a box of ballots containing the final votes the guy needs to beat the incumbent Republican is missing until the last minute, and somehow that's *his* fault? Even though there is absolutely no reason to believe those ballots were anything but legit. Why wouldn't you think they were missing as part of the Republican's attempt to stay in office, which actually makes sense? Because you're some kind of "Conservative".
I would think, that the "biggest hurdle" would be an issue of copyright infringement. Doesn't a photographer own the copyright to the pictures that he or she takes?
If they own the copyright, unless somebody can find a really sneaky way of stealing it, then they can do whatever they want with those pictures, at least one would think.
There are laws protecting people from publishing without their consent their image captured in private.
That kind of implicit mutual control of one's representation should be far more widely enforced by government. As the senator is working to make Federal law, as reported here.
He's the guy that, in one ballot box, got more votes than there were registered voters in that area. He had such a corrupt election win that the Dems, his own party, have all but abandoned him. Only the most freaked out Dem partisans support him. He's still searching for relevance.
Yes, I completely agree, but if you allow yourself to recorded doing such things....
I don't know, it seems like on one hand you have a sick problem, while on the other you have a problem of stupidity. Maybe a lose/lose isn't a draw, but something makes me feel like it is. If the recording was done secretly without consent, that's one thing, but if not it seems like if you make your bed, then you might have to sleep in it.
Whatever, get'em senator, I'm sure you really care!
Who says they know they're being recorded?
Just search on your engine of choice for 'hidden video camera' or better yet, 'hidden video camera alarm clock'.
Heck, for that matter, how many people would pay attention to the laptop, touch pad, or smartphone just casually lying on the dresser with the rest of the stuff, 'recharging'?
"but if you allow yourself to recorded doing such things...."
Then you're perfectly normal. Your morality and judgement are irrelevant. People have a right to privacy, no matter what they do in the bedroom. You and your pious bleating can go to whatever version of hell you believe in.
"Then you're perfectly normal. Your morality and judgement are irrelevant. People have a right to privacy."
At the outset let me state emphatically that I'm in complete agreement with the spirit of Mr. Pott's post. Privacy is a major, if not the major issue, society faces. Lack of respect for privacy denotes a lack of respect for persons. It signals a breakdown in civility without which society itself begins to erode.
Here, in stream of consciousness order, are some thoughts that bear on the discussion.
Normal is a mathematical term defining a probability distribution. With respect to human behavior all kinds diverse, often unsightly and publicly objectionable things fall under the curve. All of us have a right to be who we are.
Those rights are not unbounded. Sr. Irma Mildred's response to one of her student's assertion that "I got rights!" remains to this day the best I've heard on the subject. "Your right to swing ends at the tip of my nose."
In basic terms, the purpose of government. . . some would argue the primary purpose. . . is to protect the individual's right to swing short of my nose, and to protect my rights to an unbroken nose and mete out swift, just, and appropriate punishment.
My nose, metaphorically, extends to what are broadly considered human rights.
On one hand, Trevor is right, my morality and judgment are irrelevant. Particularly what I think of your morality and judgment. On the other hand, the safety of my nose depends entirely on your morality and judgment. Morality and judgment cannot be legislated. All the law and government can do is punish you after my nose has been smashed.
Societies that believe otherwise, that seek to legislate every aspect of human existence are ripe for the sound of jackboots in the street. (This last shamelessly plagiarized from another post.)
Citizens in the US believe that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy. It does not. The right to Privacy--if it exists--is among those rights not enumerated that the People reserve. If memory serves, I believe this is in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights.
Privacy is recognized in other international statements of human rights. And within the US it is strongly defended. Justice Brandeis's assertion of "the right to be left alone," is often quoted. What most readers don't realize is that this is from a written opinion in a case where he was, again if memory serves, on the losing side.
Those of us who value the right to privacy need to appreciate that our views are not universally accepted. Fostering deep understanding of the essential importance of a right to privacy, and all that right entails, may prove to be as great a challenge as defending it
@Hargrove mod-up.
It seems though of us who had a childhood mostly devoid of communicating tech, don't realise the complete change in the liability dynamic for children today.
Privacy should be along the same lines as always. If I put it in my garden then it is public view, but not in my front room when I close the curtains.
The problems are:
a) define the public garden
b) the NSA/GCHQ/Google has firebombed our curtains
c) Privacy does not make profit for advertisers and those companies that sell our data.
Perhaps liability needs to be attached to the use and collection of personal data such that there is a PRESUMPTION of care as a basis for punitive redress.
Then companies will only collect and store what is necessary for their business.
P.
Let's be absolutely clear. The wrongs we're talking about are publishing, i.e. sharing photos where a) there was a relationship of trust and confidence that the photos wouldn't be shared, and/or b) in any case the person concerned has a reasonable expectation of privacy, which in turn is protected by any decent constitution. If the person in the photo is naked, and doesn't look like a porn star, then that should put you on notice that it was confidential information.
You would not, should not, and must not share your neighbour's burglar alarm pin code with Twitter, when she has trusted you to keep it totally private. The only difference of moral substance between that and sharing someone's private naked photos is that the photos situation is even worse in some ways, because being able to have a private life is essential for the development of your personality, an interest which is arguably more vital to your ability to have a decent life, than the possessions in your flat.
It could be argued that it is the prudish and prurient attitude of society that really harms the people whose pictures are released. If they were treated as no big deal then the blackmailers would have no leverage and little incentive.
I've been saying similar for years.
The utopia depicted in Iain M. Banks' Culture novels, where nothing is taboo so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, may be fanciful and unobtainable but is certainly worth aspiring to.
Except in reality many people have that prudish and prurient attitude, so people must be protected from unwilling damage by it.
Likewise it's the covetous attitude towards others' property that makes for theft. Rather than extinguish covetousness, successful societies protect people from theft.
This particular instance of copyright shouldn't be treated any differently.
Don't want the possibility of it happening don't consent. Simple."
Not so simple: how do you tell the difference between a consensual picture and one taken by a hidden camera? I suspect that copyright law is neither going through the mind of the rights holder at the time these pictures/video are likely to be taken nor is it strong enough to deter the violator.
There is already well established law in most US states and other nations regarding when you can record someone without their knowledge or consent. Nudity or sex need not be a factor. Recall the history when Linda Tripp recorded her phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky about her experiences with the then President Clinton.
The reason new law is being proposed here at all is because these cases are all involving recordings made with the full knowledge and consent (and being of sufficient age to legally give consent) of both parties at the time. The age of consent means you should possess the maturity to appreciate the potential repercussions of your actions. Which means this is a not a straightforward legislative proposal. If done badly it could supply a rationale for people to change their minds about a variety of things and make the other party criminally liable for something that was not a crime at the time. The slope is already there. No need to pour oil on it.
The consensual picture isn't the problem. It's the nonconsensual publication. The problem is to first determine whether the picture was taken in/on public property, so no permission is required. Or if taken in private the easy problem of whether there is a release for copying from all identifiable subjects in the picture.
GPS encoded in the picture makes the public/private problem a lot easier. If faked it's as much fraud as a faked release for a private picture.
In the absence of evidence the picture is publishable, the publisher is liable for failing due diligence.
These problems aren't very complicated, now that tech supplies enough context for most pictures, making the rest exceptional that require extra supporting documentation.
Yes it is simple for some old bugger like myself to see how foolish some young person is to allow a photograph or video to be taken that might appear later. Also I can point out the hypocrisy and deceit of a society that will judge you by the odd image depicting you without the requisite amount of clothing.
But that is a reflection of my, and other's, own weakness and prejudice.
Though I suspect the whole 'revenge porn' law and action is more about self-serving wankers in power, I do feel deep down that we, the mass of humanity, need to take a look at ourselves and to realise that a photo or video of some consensual activity should NEVER be seen as a problem for those taking part. Only for those who object without any experience or justification (probably the psychological reason for such a 'problem' in the first place).
No, it's simple: never invade the privacy of others. Whether you are an individual, a government or a corporation. Neither bizarre religious beliefs or fear of "terrorists" nor desire for profit gives you the right to intrude on the lives of others.
More to the point, it's time we stopped judging other for what they do in private. The problem isn't those who choose to enjoy themselves, it's the religious fuckpopsicles who believe making other people miserable is something they need too, should, or have a right to do.
String the revenge porn assholes up by their genitalia and any of the judgmental religious freaks who try to shame victims right along side them!
Some of the materialist ones have a worse track record for invading privacy and censorship than the old men in that dead empires capital or the holy city of Marxs' disciples. (Moscow for those under 70) Emulating Miss Grundy is not the exclusive preserve of super-naturalists. Seems to be a human phenomena. Most irritating kill-joys I have run-ins with are secular humanists . Not the place to ask why you seem to have a hot spot in your psyche there.
I loath the privacy intruders too, especially as some judges in Oz crapital city seems to regard invading privacy as the norm.
It may not be the exclusive preserve of religious nutters to want to peek into every aspect of the lives of others but they are by far the worst offenders. Worst of all, they can never offer an logical rationale for their actions.
Anyone who waves around a book written by dead men as an excuse to remove civil liberties from others deserves to be chucked into a volcano. "Because god" is not a valid reason for anything.
The absolutism of faith offers up a whole other issue too: the inability to compromise. Faith is by it's very definition beyond logic, reason or boundaries. This means that when religion on morality-based-on-religion is the rationale for the removal of other peoples' rights there is no middle ground possible.
The religious types have faith that they are correct. Any attempt at balancing what may on the surface be a reasonable invasion of privacy (or breaking of any other rights/liberties/freedoms) will be viewed as hostile.
Limits, oversight, checks and balances are all viewed as attempts by unbelievers to question faith. Thus, what should be a reasonable, rational discussion about why we might want to look at intruding on the lives of others and how we might minimize that intrusion becomes an issue of "religious freedom".
In the eyes of the religious fuzzy wuzzy there exists a right for the religious man to order about others, know everything about others and control others. Any attempt to give those people control over their own lives or to enforce equality is viewed by the religious man as "oppression" because you are removing from them the "right" to tell others what to do.
But there is not right to order others, invade their privacy or control them. Any religious belief which says such a "right" exists is flat out wrong.
Let us, for example, look at gathering demographics. Government -run long form statistical surveys backed by force of law can - at first glance - seem intrusive. Yet they have perfectly valid and rational reasons to exist. With the correct controls, oversight and checks and balances in place that information can help researchers in various fields such as epidemiology, sociology, city planning, social services and many others.
There is not, however, any rational reason for non-researchers (under heavy NDA, etc) to have access to that information. There is certainly no good reason for individuals to be able to mine the information to determine, for example, who responded to the survey as LGBT.
Now, mix that up with the sort of things going on in Indiana: again, religious whacko driven. Here we have religious nutters who somehow think they have a right</i. to discriminate against people based on identifiable characteristics. Sexual orientation in this case, but I'm willing to bet the same people wish entirely they could discriminate on age, gender, race, country of origin, etc.
Every business owner should have the right to refuse to serve individuals who are abusive, or who have mistreated them (failure to pay, etc) in the past. Or to refuse a client because your capacity is full and you cannot meet the needs of additional clients. That falls under the positive right to take preventative measures against harm to yourself or your business for clear reasons that would be accepted by any reasonable jury.
But refusing service to others based on identifiable characteristics (AKA discrimination) when there are no capacity issues and no history of misconduct is simply unacceptable. Despite this, it's a key component of religious belief and practice: <i>shame, guilt and shunning.
Religion is all about control and power. It is about keeping those who have power in power and about providing a social framework that ensures predictable power structures across generations, usually ones where the minority benefit at the expense of the majority.
In today's world, violence isn't allowed in first world nations as a means of obtaining and retaining control, thus religions are falling back on shame, guilt and shunning. As a consequence, they are obsessed with getting their hands on personally identifiable information and every last detail of every person's actions, thoughts, hopes dreams and desires.
That knowledge is power. It's power over the individual but it is also the means by which the religious power structures can be maintained and transmitted down the generations. And for that reason alone we should be fighting against privacy invasion, but it is also why we need to be exceptionally wary of the use of the cloak of faith and "religious rights" as a pretext for the breach of civil liberties.
They'll never stop trying and we can never let them win.
@Trevor Potts:
Three points:
First: Like the originator of this thread (I hope you include . . .) I sense that there is a specific personal experience underlying your response. That's not said to invalidate any of your points, many of which I agree with.
What I question, specifically, is your general assertion that all religions are obsessed with getting their hands on everyone's personally identifiable information. (I recognize that there are, within specific religions and sects, the proclivities you cite to admonish, correct, condemn and shun any who do adhere strictly to a specific set of doctrinal beliefs or ritual expressions of faith. I am also aware that of at least one religion obsessed with gathering the particulars of prior generations and relatives, gathering them like the burial treasures of the Egyptian Pharos to achieve personal "godhood." But in my experience these are the exception, not the norm.)
Second, while the personality traits implicit in your discussion are most visible (and annoying) amongst religious groups, they are by no means exclusive to them. You are describing an authoritarian "follower" mindset. Simplistically, authoritarians accept belief in an external authority as the basis for unquestionable truth, to the exclusion of logic or proofs to the contrary. For this personality type, as your post describes extremely well, belief is tantamount to proof.
Religious beliefs are arguably the easiest targets to hit. But the same personality type can seize on any authority. . . a book, a person, a group. This personality type is equally represented in Anabaptists and atheists alike. (My atheist colleagues quote Dawkins's "No Skyhooks" with all the passion of a Christian fundamentalist quoting Revelations--and with no more thought.)
This is anything but a one dimensional problem. As outlined by the Toffler's what one believes is essentially irrelevant to the "True Believer." They will believe anything, as long as they have an external authority to absolve them of personal responsibility. Again, not to take issue with Mr. Pott's points, per se. Just to observe that, as @Denarius points out, this is only part of a larger picture.
And, while the example is a cliche', the Nazi regime illustrated what can happen when an authoritarian leader succeeds in blending elements of religion, science, state authority and personality.
Third, for transparency, I am a confessed Christian. Granted I am a Christian of the flavor that have traditionally been burnt at the stake by other Christians. I'm essentially Wesleyan by nature. My faith is informed by scripture, tradition, experience and reason. I am fundamentally (pun intended) profoundly agnostic. Belief and knowledge are very different things. I am fairly typical of other Christians I encounter on a daily basis. I firmly believe that this same mindset is widely reflected in believers from other traditions.
@Hargrove Like the previous poster, I suspect you are a religious apologist rather than anything approaching an impartial observer. The biggest reason for my suspicion here is that I did indeed acknowledge that this sort of authoritarian mindset can exist outside of the welcoming bosom of religion, yet you seem to feel that I not only did not say this, but that the existence of this mindset outside of religion somehow removes religion from consideration in this matter.
Yes, authoritarian pricks exist outside of religion. But religion is, by a country mile, the biggest refuge of these types of people. The existence of exceptions does not invalidate the rule.
The problem isn't religion per se. If you want to believe idiocy, go right ahead, that's up to you. The problem is that we, as a society, give religions special dispensation. Everything from tax breaks to special legal (and in crazy countries, even constitutional) protections. This makes religions the perfect place for authoritarians to hide and attempt to build their power.
The result? While individual religious followers may not all be authoritarian douchecnaoes, religions almost universally are. The social construct of religions are dangerous. The existence of them as a class of thing separate from a corporation is a huge problem.
Religions are businesses. Businesses built on intolerance, guilt, shame, shunning and - above all else - fear. Like all businesses power and money are the end goals and they will cajole, manipulate and coerce anyone and anything to achieve their ends.
Some handful of religious believers that might sometimes be good people doesn't change the above. Individual belief rarely amounts to anything on a society scale. But the institution of religions can - and does - have massively negative consequences, especially as the special treatment we give these organizations makes them the perfect lure for the authoritarian powermongers in our society.
Lastly, it is a terribly human fallacy to presume that we are "normal". That what we perceive ourselves to be is somehow indicative of "the average" or "everyone else", if not for the world as a whole, then certainly for the social groups with whom/which we choose to self identify.
An Atheist may be passionate in his lack of belief, but it's a really, really, really, really, really rare occurrence that an atheist proposes a law allowing atheist business owners to refuse to serve people of faith, or gays, or any other group. Religious groups churn that sort of bigotry out on a daily basis, and that's just in the US of A!
I have also never encountered atheists going door to door to tell you to "lose Jesus" or somesuch. Athiests may not believe ardently, but they don't tend towards using that lack of belief as a rationale for oppression or bigotry.
Note: refusal to be tolerant towards intolerant bigots is not bigotry.
If you want to start towards a society where religion is something other than a massive net negative, let's start by ripping up every single "special treatment" reserved for religion out there. Religions should register as corporations. Not-for-profit if that is what they indeed are (as opposed to Scientology, which is emphatically for profit.) Charities if they do charitable works.
But no special protection. If you believe, or don't believe, or anything in between you are treated the same. No tax breaks. No superpowers. No get out of jail or get out of corruption or get out of oversight free cards.
Make religions no more enticing a place than your local anti-cancer charity and the distribution of authoritarian douchecanoes will massively change. They won't be able to hind behind the special protections of religion anymore, so they'll have to move on elsewhere.
Maybe then individual belief will mean something. As it stands, what you believe means nothing. What matters is what people do in the name of religion, with billions of dollars to throw around, and special protections no other class of organization enjoys.
First, a sincere apology to Mr. Pott for my speculation on his personal experience. It had no place in the post, and I sincerely regret including it.
I went back and looked at the original post and found that Mr, Pott did, indeed, include a statement, that
It may not be the exclusive preserve of religious nutters to want to peek into every aspect of the lives of others
in response to which I will offer a less-than-sincere apology for my stupidity in not recognizing this as a thoughtful and well-articulated discussion of authoritarian mindset outside of religion, and retire from the discussion.
It should be said that the Quakers have a Christian religion that explicitly rejects the idea of a clerical hierarchy. I've known several and they do not proselytise - nor do they preach about sins. They have been at the forefront of equality movements - from the abolition of slavery and child labour - to the decriminalisation of homosexuality and petitioning to be allowed to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.
A gospel neighbour tried to get me to go to her church on Sundays recently - she has been angling for a while. She was taken aback to find that in spite of all my charitable deeds and apparent support for church choral music - that I am an atheist. She said she can't get through the week without her god. Her rather bright young daughter has now learned the word "atheist" and how it can be part of a "good" lifestyle.
It will be interesting to see if the next generation is influenced by their parents (usually mothers) or the wider UK society. My godchildren were spared their mother's religious bias as their father is an atheist scientist. In their twenties they have shown no desire for religion - unlike their maternal cousins who belong to what even their mother regards as various power-abusing Christian cults.
In the pre-election news - the Tories intend to pass a law to make people use their real identity to verify their age when accessing legal pr0n web sites. The usual "Think of the children" justification.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/child-protection/11514914/Porn-websites-will-be-blocked-unless-they-introduce-age-controls-Tories-say.html
That boy in the picture must be tired of it being used by the Telegraph every time they want to illustrate an article about children accessing pr0n on the web.
It says something about a society when people have to think about self-censorship in almost everything they do that should be strictly personal.
That is how religious and political bodies have exerted their power for so long. People were afraid to be seen to step out of line - for which they could be directly punished or at least shunned by fearful peers.
that a politician is so concerned about this particular one..
I don't even know the guy, but now I'm thinking maybe there's a picture of him at a petting zoo getting a little too intimate with Miss Piggy, and he's just making sure the legal framework is in place for when it inevitably gets posted on imgur.
Kevin Bollaert who ran the ugotposted.com website (hosting 10,000 explicit pictures posted without the subject's consent) just got sent down for 18 years porridge in California.
How come this is missing from the article?
It is quite simple. Bigotry demands being able to judge and segregate from afar.
How you look (colour, body shape, facial features ,wealth).
How you sound (accent, language, education).
How you are different (displays of non-conformant belief, expressions of unwelcome humanity).
Ultimately bigotry hates the way you think, because this cannot be seen from afar to judge you. So digging this out is important to make you compliant.
That's why we need Privacy - freedom of speech does not exist where there is no freedom of thought.
P.
Mr. F got his start writing for Saturday Night Live and doing pieces that typically revolved around him appealing for tributes or money to, in his words "..me, Al Franken", ending every other sentence that way. I guess he said it enough that it paid off.
More disturbing than a comedian being elected to the Senate is the perception the FBI is the personal police force of any Senator who cares to call on it. Last time I checked the FBI had jurisdiction over bank robberies, crimes on Federal land, espionage and generally any criminal activity that crosses State boundaries. I don't recall love spats between consenting adults being in that jurisdiction.
FBI had jurisdiction over ... generally any criminal activity that crosses State boundariesAnd publishing privately held, or secretly taken recordings of people in their most private moments nation(world)-wide for the purpose of humiliation and/or blackmail does not count as a "criminal activity that crosses State boundaries"? This is exactly in the FBI's remit.
On another note: The bit I see missing from the "Don't Want 'em on the internet? Don't let 'em be taken" crowd is where there is anything wrong with a couple recording their bedroom activities. Please point to me in the bible where is says "Thou shalt not record thy freakery" or anything to that point. Why is it wrong to trust your partner with images of intimate moments, when you trust them to be there in your most intimate moments? The violation of that trust is the main insult of these revenge porn sites.
If we can make a law declaring "revenge" porn somehow different, then what stops any politico, pundit, bundler or propagandist from declaring any compromising photos/video/ect were "revenge" and therefore eliminat-able under the new law?
Does anyone with memory, common sense and not in thrall to the Cult of Outrage not see the harmful effect this allows?
Congratulations, we've just codified another means of information control.
Beware the "save the (children/women/etc ) from themselves" laws. Because they WILL be used in a manner completely different from how the legislation was sold.
But the Outraged will never allow the discussion to go that way. The emotional arguments will be "but what if it was your daughter/son/etc?" as if that somehow justifies ignoring the realpolitik of legislative abuse.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
