Your taking my comment out of context.
Is looking at porn harmful to the porn-star?
Is looking at an unidentifiable picture harmful to that person?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
- Status
Your taking my comment out of context.
Is looking at porn harmful to the porn-star?
Is looking at an unidentifiable picture harmful to that person?
While I agree with your angle, the "consent" portion is rather important in defining the harm, if any. You can't neglect that aspect.
I didn't take it out of context. You're trying to equate viewing a picture (moving or otherwise) of someone that got paid and were aware that it would be broadcast on the internet to someone having their picture taken out of their control and put across the internet where they can no longer control it. Yes, it does harm them. They didn't consent.
Devolution
Member
You're arguing from the position that this person won't ever discover it.
A completely reasonable stance. In fact, in the case of an "unidentifiable photo," it would happen much more than not. I'm not saying there is no harm done if they don't find out about it, either. "Harm inflicted" would obviously vary from person to person.
Devolution
Member
It's not a reasonable stance at all. And let's not forget the fact that no consent retained here is what makes these things alluring. That's a big red flag if there ever was one.
Messypandas
Member
George Seurat invented the creepshot..
DAT CRINOLINE
I'm not arguing if it's immoral, I'm not arguing if it's wrong, I'm well aware that it is. I'm not arguing whether or not anyone would feel discomfort in knowing the picture is on the internet.
Does an unrecognizable photo do anyone any harm? That's my question and my only point.
I'd say you did take it out of context since your addressing details that have nothing to do with the point of my post.
These people are deriving a sexual pleasure implicitly from the knowledge that they are doing something without a woman's consent. If that were not the case, they would be watching porn.
You seriously don't see how that can be harmful in many and varied ways?
You're assuming the photo is unrecognizable or that the person won't know about it. Just because you can't see their face doesn't make it untraceable or unrecognizable. Uniqueness doesn't stop at the face.
also this
What photo are you talking about? My original comment was replying to this:
I responded and added something: it's harmless as long as they cannot be identified. There is no argument or assumptions going on. Like I said, you're taking my comment out of context.
Nobody feels the need to explain it to me. All everyone is saying is something along the lines of 'It's morally wrong.' I already said.
Devolution
Member
You can't understand why getting off to implicit non-consensual imagery would be an issue?
fuzzyreactor
Banned
And the point here is what is your definition of the picture not being identifiable? To you it might be yoga pants #56, but to victim they know the place and time the person that took the picture and they can see the slightly off-hemmed seam in the pants, so the field is narrowed and they know it's them.
The thrust of this is don't take a picture of a person without their consent, doubly so if you're using it to get off.
We're arguing the harm done to the subject. At least I was. I think everyone is aware of the inherent attributes of voyeurism, based on the variety of definitions given over the last 50 replies.
It's the "what you don't know won't hurt you" maxim being induced here. It gets uploaded and becomes just another picture on the internet with the only context being an ass shot of a woman, especially if it's as nondescript as the crux of this argument is letting on.
The assumption that the subject won't find about the photo is a reasonable one to make. The relative harm done has to account for this.
This is all in discussion of harm being done only.
It's not about 'my definition' it's whether the photo is truly unidentifiable. Take two photos, one shows the whole body, the other shows a zoom of a certain body part
They're both wrong, but one is harmful the other isn't.
They're both harmful because they're both of that person without their consent and it's their fucking body.
Wrong/Immoral? or harmful?
This thread isn't about those photos; it's about creep-shots in general.
Byakuya769
Member
... Most of those pics looked pretty identifiable though.
Harmful. I don't even need to bring morals into it. It's common sense that other people aren't yours to do with as you wish.
Look, it basically boils down to gradations of rape, experienced by people. I'd rather have a paedophile/rapist take pics of my daughter/sister/wife in a controlled environment (playground/beach/public lavatories) and then take them back to his abode and spank, rather than he abduct them with deadly consequences.
Most people have urges, but you have to look at the big picture. Which is why creepy-stealthpicsturbators are preferable to full blown rapists.
Harmful and wrong aren't interchangeable.
Harm has to impact the person in some meaningful way. If an unidentifiable photo had no impact absent someone's notice of its existence, there is no harm involved.
If one were to draw the line of harm otherwise, it would mean that the mere act of fantasizing about people falls under this category of harm and such ideas would be innately nonsensical and worthless to pursue.
Raonak
Banned
what someone is doing with the photo after the fact is kinda missing the point, whether someone uses it for a gallery exhibition, or beats off to it, it doesn't matter. someone could be getting off to any picture of anyone. even if their conscent was given. doesn't really make it any better or worse.
what matters is whether taking a picture, of someone in public, without their consent. and making them "unidentifible."
im going with the mindset of morally wrong, but thats all. :/
You think that people who take and then share pictures that can lead to they themselves being identified -- as in the news story in the OP -- exhibit the kind of self-control that will keep their sexual fantasies always in their own head?
A person learning that he derives heightened sexual pleasure from doing something to someone else without their consent -- and repeatedly getting off on that fact -- doesn't actually seem like a path away from abuse and rape.
edit: Uh, it's harmful to the person taking the picture as well. I thought that would be obvious? If you increasingly think of the women around you as objects to violate and expose to the eyes of others for your own sexual gratification, that is doing severe harm to your socialization and your ability to interact with the world around you in a healthy way.
Uh, they're commonly linked.
Something that's harmful is usually wrong, but something that's wrong isn't always harmful.
They still aren't interchangeable.
People get pictures taken of them without consent all the time, why should the later use of the picture matter? I was at Mt. Rushmore and I was accidentally photographed dozens of times. What is the difference if the person with the picture jacks off to it or just deletes it? If the person photographed doesn't know it exists (which is the case over 99% of the time) then there is no harm done.
I think you are also under the belief that masturbating to the thought of someone who doesn't know you are masturbating to them is wrong. Why? What if I masturbated to a girl on facebook? Do I need her consent for it be morally okay? I think it's kind of Puritanical that you need to get permission to think about someone in a sexual way.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
This is getting a little out there.
CrudeDiatribe
Member
There is some discussion here. See especially the last post on the first page.
When I described it as a law, I misspoke. There have been one or two rulings relating to photography and the publishing of images that draw from a law about privacy.
My impression, is that if the image would be of interest to the public it can be used for editorial purposes; otherwise a photo is a privacy invasion if the person is the subject of the photo, even in places where there is no expectation of privacy.
My impression is that many in the photography profession and serious hobbyists is that the bar is set too low in Québec. What's the difference between legitimate street photography and the shit on Reddit?
There's a difference between you being incidental / in the crowd of a picture focused on something else to a picture taken of someone because I want to use you as spank bank material
Just a question to understand where things fall...
So candid shots are OK, shots taken specifically to show off an appealing physical aspect of someone are not...the difference here seems to come down to intent, right?
So what about shots that were never intended to be sexual being sexualized? Like that teen pole vaulter that went around. Or the GAFfer who masturbates to the pics people post of themselves in the "show yourself" thread? Obviously those pics were never intended to be sexual, but someone's still jerking off to them.
So candid shots are OK, shots taken specifically to show off an appealing physical aspect of someone are not...the difference here seems to come down to intent, right?
So what about shots that were never intended to be sexual being sexualized? Like that teen pole vaulter that went around. Or the GAFfer who masturbates to the pics people post of themselves in the "show yourself" thread? Obviously those pics were never intended to be sexual, but someone's still jerking off to them.
Well I believe I spoke to you before on this issue and I can see why you don't want your picture taken. See the only problem I have with how people feel on this issue is that this seems like other thing that people feel should be some kind of law on. To me it isn't a issue of right or wrong its an issue of control and telling others what they should and shouldn't do. Its just one of the blessing and curses of technology to me.
It doesn't really need to be legislated when it's common sense and can already be covered under existing laws. Don't harass someone by taking creeper shots of them, feeling up on them, or stalking them. It requires a minimum amount of control and for other posters in this tread to not be aspergers patients when it comes to social interaction.
My mom actually just had something similar happen. She was at a drive in movie theater a few weeks ago and went to the concession stand to buy popcorn. The guy in line behind her put his phone camera over her shoulder and tried to take a picture down her shirt. An older man behind her yelled "Hey, what the fuck are you doing?" towards the camera-guy. The camera-guy ended up running out of the building.
If you go out of your way for any reason to take a photo of unaware stranger in public. You are invading their privacy.
If you go out of your way for any reason to take a photo of unaware stranger in public. You are invading their privacy.
No it would have been fine since it was from behind and you couldn't see her face. No harm done! He just wanted a harmless picture of her body.
While true it also requires minimum amount of effort to not be bothered by people taking picks of you. Also weather people agree or not not everyone has common sense. What makes for common sense can differ from person to person on an issue like this. This isn't something like having sense not to leave an iron on when you leave the house or thinking that stabbing someone that they won't die that's easier to gauge.
People believe if you have a right to look you have the right to take pics. There really isn't a general consensus on weather this is right or wrong especially the world over so its hard and tricky to gauge this. I do however believe in some situations it is wrong, but man do I really get tired of people telling me who are you to tell me its wrong and others backing them up on the issue.
Ya it's weird but what do you expect is going to happen when you're hot and step out in extremely tight or revealing clothes when practically everyone has some kind of camera on them at all times. I've gotten a few "best ass I've ever seen" picture messages but didn't think they were on the level of violation that some of you believe. I wouldn't doubt it that a lot of pictures on that subforum are pulled from random pictures online and reuploaded for "up votes".
Just curious... what do you mean by this?
Just curious... what do you mean by this?
Perv shots of unknowing women's asses is not candid photography.
faceless007
Member
For the sake of playing devil's advocate, that doesn't answer the question. If X takes pictures of Y for private use only and Y never finds out about it and his/her life is not impacted in any way, what harm is being done?
This is important because if you want to legislate the act on that basis, proving harm would be a necessary step for the prosecution.
Yeah that girl had what was coming to her with her clothes she was wearing, because it's the target/victim's fault
Someone who goes that far is usually not going to do it once and never again, and are also harming their own mental health with the way they think of and treat other people as objects for their own personal use and trading.
If a prosecution came into play, this would be due to the person being caught in the act and the previous victims photos being discovered and obtained. You're asking creepers to essentially be better creepers and not trip up. Add to the fact that many cameraphones and digital cameras geotag the picture with metadata and the plausability of the photo being completely anonymous when they upload it diminishes.
Devolution
Member
To me the harm would be more on a collective level and the fact that this stuff gets traded as a means of "upping the game" so to speak. From there it just gets disturbing. People shouldn't be encouraged to violate other's boundaries in such a way.
People with freckles anywhere other than their face are not to be trusted?
- Status