back to article 'Stupid old white people' revenge porn ban won't work, insists selfie-peddler

The governor of California has outlined plans to make revenge porn illegal - but the inventor of this online phenomenon has warned the "stupid white man" that his plan is destined to fail. State Governor Jerry Brown passed Senate Bill 255 yesterday, which makes it illegal to post clearly identifiable nude pictures of a person …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The real moral of the story is...

    Don't send nekkid pictures of yourself to anyone,....even your husband or wife. Sure as hell don't do it via the internet or email.

    You should know by now that in addition to being a profoundly stupid idea, the NSA looks at everything that goes over the web and the first thing they look at are pictures. (Cuz they might contain steganography, doncha know)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The law?

      Now whip me if I am wrong but where permission has been given to take such artistic photographs the photographer has the rights to said pictures...

      So how would you differentiate?

      1. Mike Moyle Silver badge

        Re: The law?

        Well, for any legitimate porn vendor (nudie magazine, adult website, porn movie producer, etc.), the producer/vendor is required by law to have a signed release from the models/actors AND proof of age on file. Presumably revenge posters DON'T have these things readily to hand should the authorities come a-calling so -- under the existing regs -- they're ALREADY in violation of the law. This just seems like a slightly different direction from which to attack the posters if the first one doesn't work.

        ...Which is fine by me; I see no reason why someone should be shamed and punished because they made an unfortunate choice in love/sex partners.

        1. MrDamage

          Re: The law?

          "...Which is fine by me; I see no reason why someone should be shamed and punished because they made an unfortunate choice in love/sex partners."

          They are actually being punished because they made TWO unfortunate choices.

          The first being taking the nudie selfie, and the second sending to someone whose judgement and character is beyond their dictatorial control.

          Moral of the story: If you don't want pic of your bits flashed about all over the interwebz, then dont send then to anyone.*

          *If you are going to send them, at least send pics that do not include any identifying features. No face, no tattoos, piercings, brandings, birthmarks, or in rooms with backgrounds which contain features that you have sent identifiable shots from. Plausible deniability. Utilise it.

          1. Ralph B

            @MrDamage Re: The law?

            *If you are going to send them, at least send pics that do not include any identifying features. No face, no tattoos, piercings, brandings, birthmarks, or in rooms with backgrounds which contain features that you have sent identifiable shots from.

            You forgot to offer to check the pics first, as a free service, like.

          2. Guus Leeuw
            Joke

            Re: The law?

            Sir,

            with reference to Monty Python, I fixed your post like so:

            "of your naughty bits flashed..."

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The law?

        The poster has to show they have the written permission of the posted.

        Pretty simple isn't it?

        If I'm in love and sending a selfie to my lover and they whip out a release

        form and a pen then I guess I'd think twice.

      3. MonkeyCee Silver badge

        Re: The law?

        Usually a payment record or a model release would suffice. That's what I've been assured matters for anything I've been in that "used my image".

        I worked as an extra on TV and movies, before any further suggestions are made :)

      4. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: The law?

        "Now whip me if I am wrong but where permission has been given to take such artistic photographs the photographer has the rights to said pictures..."

        The photographer has to get a model release in most countries.

        As for selfies, the recipient is not the photographer - for obvious reasons.

        It should be possible to claim copyright and have photos taken down, but the fact remains that if an image is on the net then it will never ever disappear.

        1. David Hicks

          Re: The law?

          >> It should be possible to claim copyright and have photos taken down, but the fact remains that if an image is on the net then it will never ever disappear

          Interesting angle actually, yes. If the 'victim' is also the photographer, then sending it to someone does not confer rights of distribution to them, just the normal provisions of copyright (copy for archival allowed, distribution definitely not).

          So where someone is distributing the material for profit, you ought to be able to sick 'em with the full force of pretty much all the laws that the MPAA and RIAA have paid for in the last couple of decades.

    2. Geoff Campbell
      Facepalm

      Re: The real moral of the story is...

      Nah. The real moral of the story is that we're all naked under our clothes, and we all look more or less the same, give or take a few model variations across the two available variations. Celebrate it, don't denigrate it!

      GJC

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The real moral of the story is...

        I completely agree, but until we outlaw puritanism and any religion that promotes it, nothing will ever change. The fact remains is that NOTHING on the Web is safe or secure anymore.

        Many years ago there was a song I heard with lyrics or title "Gentlemen take Polaroids" .

        Still words to live by.

      2. CAPS LOCK Silver badge

        Re: The real moral of the story is...

        Well, you may be nekkid under your clothes, but I and the rest of the right-thinking folks have a coat of woad under our clothes. <Marches off, nekkid but for a coat of woad, singing The Woad Ode: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Woad_Ode>

    3. CCCP

      Re: The real moral of the story is...

      Much as I don't get the 'plicit picture sending - you would worry about your other half?? Really??

      Trust is a shortage commodity as it is, no need to be paranoid. Just treat your other half decently.

      Anyway, a printed picture is better how exactly?

      1. theblackhand

        Re: The real moral of the story is...

        No, the real moral of the story is everyone should wear more clothes so that they can take clothes off, take pictures and not have to worry about accidentally ending up naked in a photo or video that appears on the Internet. In an ad. Next to your CV while a potential future employer is evaluating you....

        Or maybe the moral is "hoping elected idiots will develop an effective law to protect idiots who have done idiotic things that they later regret" provides a level of optimism not normally seen in these dark times...

        1. Geoff Campbell

          Re: The real moral of the story is...

          If a potential employer rejected me because they saw a photo of me naked, then I suspect that they would not be someone I wanted to work for anyway.

          GJC

          1. relpy

            Re: The real moral of the story is...

            It mightn't be the picture of you that causes your rejection - it might be the picture of the other candidate...

          2. Juillen 1

            Re: The real moral of the story is...

            Well, when you really want the job, and the employer has to pick between two equally qualified people, you'll probably be a tad remorseful that the pic got out when the other guy gets the role.

            There again, there may be some place that do hire you because they've seen naked pics of you.. I'm not so sure they're someone I'd be comfy working for.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Cue people fitting others up for posting nude images of other people without their knowledge.

    Perhaps they could have a law about that as well.

    Then we could have people accusing people of illegally posting nude images under the guise of someone else ad infinitum...

    It really is turtles all the way down.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Tell you what, let them try the law intending to stop these assholes from abusing (because it is abuse) their former partners/lovers and then we'll see if there are turtles all the way down. I think that's better than letting the abuse continue 'just in case'.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Just for the record, I was not trying to argue that this wasn't a serious issue.

        Sometimes though, you have to take a broader view and avoid knee jerk legislation targeting specific, very narrow offences. Surely, this is harassment and that is illegal in many jurisdictions.

  3. Will Godfrey Silver badge

    The guy is a prat

    Sooner or later he'll annoy the wrong person. That person will be someone with a hair-trigger temper and the means to find him and take him out.

    I'll shed no tears for him when it happens.

    1. Martin
      FAIL

      Re: The guy is a prat

      A prat? That's a description of someone who did something stupid, or doesn't get something most of us feel is obvious. We're all prats occasionally.

      There are several words I could use to describe this guy. Prat doesn't even begin to describe him.

  4. Dave 126 Silver badge

    I don't know how copyright law works in the US, but don't the rights to photograph belong to the photographer (so in the case of 'selfies', to the subject of the photograph)?

    Just asking.

    1. SirWired 1

      The subject of the photo, unless they have signed a model release, also has rights.

      1. Ian Watkinson

        "The subject of the photo, unless they have signed a model release, also has rights."

        Unless they don't have a reasonable expecation of rights, i.e they are in public. Flash your boobs at a rock concert, you can't then claim rights to the resulting photos.

        1. LazyLazyman

          Depends. It is rather more complex than that. If you are the subject of the photo you do have rights, no matter where you are, but if you are not (I.E. walking in the background of a photo in a public place) you probably don't. There are obvious exemptions to do with news and public interest.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    “We are animals. We are sexual. Maybe they need a class on reality: don't give your kid a phone."

    Wow. Class act all the way there.

    1. HMB

      Agreed

      Is it just me or does he sound like a guy on a Grand Theft Auto radio station?

    2. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

      "Wow. Class act all the way there."

      Well "class" is what differentiates humans from animals. Given his view, we wouldn't expect to find him having any.

    3. Alfred

      Failure to connect the dots

      Despite having already been stabbed once (with a pen), he apparently fails to finish the thought with "We are animals. When you annoy an animal enough, it will try to kill you." I look forwards to reading about him in the Darwin Awards.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Stupid white man"?

    Wow. Way to go on avoiding a lawsuit for racism? Maybe not. Still, there's always another way to skin a cat...

    1. andreas koch
      Childcatcher

      @ AC 1917h GMT - Re: "Stupid white man"?

      Not just rascism. Agism, sexism and dumbism as well. This would be a case of "compound Ism-ism".

      That'll be a new thing in California's courts next month . . .

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Revenge is not a Christian value, so he ain't no "Christian boy" :P

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Yep and blowing people up isn't an Islamic value either so go figure. :P

    2. Geoff Campbell
      Boffin

      Um...

      Whatever happened to "an eye for an eye"?

      GJC

      1. Flatpackhamster

        Re: Um...

        We ran out of eyes.

      2. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Um...

        Old Testament, (blood sex and revenge), superceded by New Testament (Love thy neighbour, etc)

        If you subscribe to "an eye for an eye" then you're missing the point.

        1. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

          Re: Um...

          If you subscribe to [%RELIGIOUS_TXT] then you are missing a much bigger point.

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            Thumb Up

            Re: Boring Bernie Re: Um...

            Upvote (must be a flying pigs day).

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Have you read the Bible lately? or the pages of history? He and His followers are pretty adept at getting revenge. Ask the caliphs. Oh,...

    4. Rogue Jedi

      Revenge is not a Christian value

      Yes it is, the Bible clearly states that you can take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

      Transferred into a modern context if someone assults you, steels your car, robs your home or even kills someone you know you are permitted to respond in kind.

      also there are many instances of “God” endorsing or performing acts of terrorism in the old testament the story of Moses springs to mind.

      This is a small part of the reason I stopped being a Christian before reaching adulthood

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Revenge is not a Christian value

        Unless his enemies have iron chariots of course, God is powerless against them.

        http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/iron.html

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Revenge is not a Christian value

        Amazing how many people quote that old testament stuff without saying, through ignorance or malice, that the old testament is context for Christians. The new testament is the important one, in which it says:

        Mathew 5

        38

        You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'

        39

        "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    WWJSS

    self-described “small town Christian boy.”

    I think Jesus said it best (Matthew 7:12) - "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; except for those sluts who send naked selfies - those bitches deserve it."

    </sarcasm>

    1. Mycho Silver badge

      Re: WWJSS

      I'm sure he would like women to collect his naked selfies and masturbate over them.

      The golden rule doesn't usually work on sexual matters.

  9. MisterMunster

    I'm an old white guy and I tired of being a punching bag for leftist thugs. Why is this guy taunting/insulting people based on race? If he wanted to get negative attention, he's now got it. If he think ''old stupid white men'' don't have the power and influence to unterly destroy him, he's so wrong, just look at the Government that makes our laws, 90% old stupid white men. I would have wish him well, but after his choice to insult the white race, I hope he dies.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      That's one of the most bizarre rejoinders I've ever seen... "How dare you say that stupid old white men can't hurt you? Stupid old white men like us run the world!"

      Uhhh..... OK....

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

    3. Francis Boyle Silver badge

      Ah, his scumbag is

      a leftist thug. You know, I was confused. I thought this guy was just another jerk looking to get rich off the misery of others. But that's just the American dream and how can that possibly be bad? But now you've explained that he's a leftist and a thug to boot it all makes sense. Obviously it's all part of Obama's plan to destroy the US and annoy old white guys. Thanks for explaining it.

      1. grammarpolice

        Re: Ah, his scumbag is

        I agree, it's pretty boggling.

        1. Revenge porn

        2. ???

        3. Socialists are evil

    4. Maharg

      He’s not being Racist, he is in fact, white, what he is referring to with “Stupid old White People” is the idea that those in power are mostly, white, male, old, and out of touch with the majority of Americans/or reality. It’s quite a well-used expression, an example would be Michael Moore calling one of his books ‘Stupid White Men’.

      So, you are more or less agreeing with him...

      1. rcorrect
        Boffin

        He’s not being Racist, he is in fact, white, what he is referring to with “Stupid old White People” is the idea that those in power are mostly, white, male, old, and out of touch with the majority of Americans/or reality.

        The remark is still racist because it is based on... wait for it... race! It doesn't matter if he is white or not, a racist remark is still a racist remark.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Wooah, take your pills Grandad, you're spelling getting a bit shaky there. Insulting the white race, the cheek of it!

      1. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge
  10. SirWired 1

    Why would he give up subscriber details? Because he'll receive a legal subpoena demanding them. I imagine a criminal contempt order might convince him.

    And I'm not sure he can Section-230 his way out either... if you actively solicit material that is almost certainly illegal, I don't think 230 provides an impenetrable shield.

  11. Awil Onmearse

    California Über alles!

    "You will croak you little clown

    When you mess with President Brown"

  12. Jess

    Simple answer.

    Make it a copyright issue.

    i.e. The copyright of any naked pictures taken in private belongs to the subject.

    If the subject choose to share pictures privately with anyone, their rights would be explicitly for personal use only, they can retain private copies, or delete them, nothing else.

    The photographer has NO rights to intimate pictures. (And were they taken in secret, then obviously they would not even have implied personal use rights.)

    Any breech of that, and the same rules as pirate movies or music would apply. (And we know what that's like in America.)

    Obviously it would not apply to photo shoots or public displays. (For example antics a nightclub, with no ban on photography.) And of course, not if the subject has publicly published them.

    The same could also be applied to the victims of crime, which would deal with happy slapping.

    The main changes from the situation at present, all pictures taken in private showing nudity or the victim of a crime (anywhere) the copyright is with the subject, not the photographer.

    Sharing pictures privately (or allowing personal ones to be taken) gives personal use rights only.

    Pictures taken without permission in private (except when a crime is being recorded) the photographer has no rights to.

    Publication of personal pictures (nudity, or other gross intrusion of privacy) would be treated as seriously as movie and music piracy.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Simple answer.

      I think if somebody entrusts someone they care about with intimate images and that person later in life when possibly they are no longer together decides to use those pictures to get revenge. Abusing their trust through a campaign of public humiliation designed to hurt and belittle them.

      I think that's more serious than a copyright issue. Much more serious. That's a serious crime. In the parlance of the place in question that should be a felony.

      "Yes your honour, the deceased's boss and parents were all devout Christians and after she was sacked and shunned by her parents and then the local community she fell into a cycle of depression until, eventually, she took her own life. AND LOOK!! he downloaded 2 episodes of breaking bad!!!!"

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Jerry Brown still on the go?

    Wow, the original California Uber Alles (Dead Kennedys) was about him, that was about 35 years ago!

    He hasn't changed much then lol

  14. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Childcatcher

    "Don't give your kid a phone."

    Most sensible advice in htis whole f**king "debate."

    Because remember sending/posting underage selfie --> possession/distribution/manufacture of CP.

  15. Potemkine Silver badge

    Real problem, wrong solution

    I'm surprised there's nothing in US law to already fight such disgraceful behavior: violation on image right, harassment, privacy violation... The US could prosecute somone like Mr Levison because he did not give his SSL certificates to the FBI in an electronic manner but couldn't do anything against such actions that could lead to destroy a human being? It sounds surprising...

  16. Richard 120

    Copyright infringement?

    If they're selfies and someone is publishing them then how about going for copyright infringement?

    Could the victims not go for a class action suit of that nature?

  17. Shaha Alam

    if you must take pictures of your jiggly bits, make sure they're polaroids.

    better yet, don't take pictures of your jiggly bits. they'll invariably end up in the wrong hands.

    1. John G Imrie Silver badge

      they'll invariably end up in the wrong hands.

      Is that the picture or your jiggly bits?

  18. 080

    Seems simple to me, but....

    Well the solution seems simple to me, If you don't want anyone to see embarrassing pictures of you then do not allow any to be taken and certainly do not take any yourself. The present trend of self pictures, with or without clothes, sprayed everywhere is one of my many pet hates.

    As the old saying goes... "A secret is only a secret until you either write it down or tell anyone"

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Seems simple to me, but....

      Yeah the women here haven't done anything wrong and the men have.

      Let's tell the women to change their behavior.

      The damn sluts!

  19. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Usual politician's response - another pointless law.

    "Hey, we have to be seen to be doing something, so let's make a pointless law that sounds good without actually solving anything, because that might garner a few votes." How will it work with selfies hosted on revenge sites outside the US?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Usual politician's response - another pointless law.

      Yeah coz a country should never make anything illegal if another country thinks it's OK.

      I mean think about it for 5 seconds.

      An american guy in america running an american site hosted on an american server that allows, mainly, american guys to shame their american ex-girlfriends by posting pictures taken in america and then mainly viewed by other american guys generating revenue with american adverts for american products.

      You're absolutely right, the idea that the americans should think of having a law against it is ridiculous.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: AC Re: Usual politician's response - another pointless law.

        ".....I mean think about it for 5 seconds....." Obviously, five seconds was about all you could manage. Now try an extra five seconds and try and think what will stop the sites being hosted abroad? Nothing. In fact, it would probably be a lot cheaper to host them abroad anyway, and with $10k of advertising revenue a month that little five seconds of thought is not going to be much of a problem for the type of people that will run such sites.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019