The article says we should be very upset about digital crimes. We should. We definitely should. Meanwhile most are googling for the nudes...
Then this "And rightly so, because these photo leaks aren’t sex scandals. They’re sex crimes."
No they aren't.
They are theft of property just like stolen movies and stolen music. This is the web and if you don't want it stolen, don't use the technology. It was designed by social nitwits for other social nitwits and enabled the biggest wealth transfer in technical history to the technologists who designed it without safeguards.
If they can make this someone else's fault, they'll feel better and maybe she will like them. Meanwhile as another writer noted an infinite supply of idiots is required to keep financing the systems that enable the very actions the nitwits are calling crimes because the idiots and nitwits embarassed someone who posted nude photos of herself based on the promises of nitwits to idiots.
And so it goes.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/leah-mclaren-leak-of-nude-photos-is-a-sex-crime-not-a-scandal/article20334805/?click=sf_globefb#dashboard/follows
3 comments:
Hell, Len, that's the equivalent of saying that if you're dumb enough to build your house with windows, you deserve it when you get a Peeping Tom looking in at you. It ain't so. There aren't very many technical barriers to voyeurism, so we criminalize it in hopes that we can keep the frequency down, especially of the kind of Peeping Tom who doesn't just look but takes pictures too.
What you're doing, I'm sorry to say, is a clear-cut case of blaming the victim.
Wrong.
1. I'm saying the technology isn't safe. If you dance naked in front of the window, expect to be seen.
2. The people blaming the victim are Apple and the rest of cloud experts who are telling her that if she had just used the curtains correctly (two part verfication), she could have danced nude by the window safely.
It isn't voyeurism. No one is looking in her window. They stole her files. It is property theft just as if they had stolen her movie or her music.
Hyperbole diminishes meaning and I'm sorry to say you are more interested in defending poorly conceived technology than her rights to property. You are using her and drumming up emotional issues as a means to fog the fact that your technology offers no protection to high value property.
So it comes down to don't dance near the window because it's a window.
I am in no way defending Apple or its technology, and personally I gave up on all expectations of privacy long ago for anything that isn't strictly in my own head. And yes, telling the victim she should have done it better, when technologists themselves can't (see Tim Bray's latest on the subject) is hypocritical. What I object to is your saying it's just stolen property, as if it weren't invasion of privacy as well. There's a reason we treat home invasion more seriously than mere theft.
Post a Comment