Common sense dies when adults catch teenagers "sexting" each other(reason.com)
reason.com
Common sense dies when adults catch teenagers "sexting" each other
http://www.reason.com/news/show/133863.html
88 comments
So basically, everyone who took private pictures of their high school sweetheart back in the day and never bothered to delete them after turning eighteen is in possession of child pornography?
Even BEFORE you turn 18. There are cases of <18 yo kids being tried as adults for 'possessing', 'producing' or 'distributing' child pornography. Even the girl who takes the pictures of herself is not safe from this sort of legal system madness.
Anyone who aids and abets this sort of thing -- criminalizing the quite natural urges of those growing into adulthood -- should go to prison themselves.
The perils of living in a puritanical country....
The perils of living in a puritanical country....
OK let's take a step back and examine the core issue here: are minors capable enough of making sound decisions to be held legally liable for the outcomes?
If they are, then they should also be allowed to "sext" similar peers. If not they are not capable of making such decisions, then they should not be arrested for receiving such messages.
To say that teenagers are both culpable and incapable of sound reasoning is not a consistent position. But then, are we really trying to be sensible?
If they are, then they should also be allowed to "sext" similar peers. If not they are not capable of making such decisions, then they should not be arrested for receiving such messages.
To say that teenagers are both culpable and incapable of sound reasoning is not a consistent position. But then, are we really trying to be sensible?
This is just a traditional legal system struggling because it refuses to recognize changes in culture and technology. I don't think anyone is specifically out to get kids, it's just that these people (lawyers, judges, sheriffs, etc.) simply don't understand what's taking place.
Not necessarily. I've seen some of the decisions and they don't really make sense. One of the decisions was to 'protect' the children because it was possible for someone to hack their computer, steal the images, and then distribute them -- even though no such distribution had taken place, and the only reason that images came to light is because one of their cellphones was confiscated for an unrelated reason at school. The child was 'protected' against having these images distributed by being convicted of a sex crime and having to register as a sex offender... Sometimes the lack of logic makes you want to rip your hair out. The judge with the dissenting opinion said everything that I wanted to say to the majority judges. I almost want to find him and take him out for a few beers just for performing his job reasonably.
I see this as most judges using this as a way to 'make an example' of these children so that others will think twice before engaging in such action. I also believe that they are purposefully misinterpreting the laws to do so. Or maybe they just don't want to be painted politically as not 'caring about the children' or some such nonesense that other politicians/media would paint them in such a light.
I see this as most judges using this as a way to 'make an example' of these children so that others will think twice before engaging in such action. I also believe that they are purposefully misinterpreting the laws to do so. Or maybe they just don't want to be painted politically as not 'caring about the children' or some such nonesense that other politicians/media would paint them in such a light.
Also parents. You forget the parents. The parents are nutso control freaks.
Americans hate their kids to have even the slightest whiff of sexuality (unless we do it them ourselves in the name of pageantry, or new boobs for sweet 16), and as Americans, our favorite reaction to things we don't like is first, war, and if that's not available, jail, and if that's not available, shooting.
Americans hate their kids to have even the slightest whiff of sexuality (unless we do it them ourselves in the name of pageantry, or new boobs for sweet 16), and as Americans, our favorite reaction to things we don't like is first, war, and if that's not available, jail, and if that's not available, shooting.
Don't try to paint everyone with such a broad brush. I posit that in America too many people are apathetic of the legal system so only the hardcore wackos get any sort of political support on social issues such as this.
But things like 'save the children' seem to me to be a modern day form of McCarthyism. If I don't support stripping sexuality from children, then I must be a pedophile and just looking to make it legal for me to have sex with children. Or else I "just don't understand" because I'm not a parent myself and all of my views are therefore discounted as if I am not really a part of the same society or even a human being at all.
But things like 'save the children' seem to me to be a modern day form of McCarthyism. If I don't support stripping sexuality from children, then I must be a pedophile and just looking to make it legal for me to have sex with children. Or else I "just don't understand" because I'm not a parent myself and all of my views are therefore discounted as if I am not really a part of the same society or even a human being at all.
No, we just don't like our kids thinking about and having sex. It makes as feel as though the casual absolute control we have over them is slipping.
Which reminds me of pg's essay "Lies We Tell Kids": http://paulgraham.com/lies.html .
I would say casual absolute control has been gone for decades.
And to follow up on your point, my parents heavily controlled content I was allowed to consume, and slowly introduced me to making my own choices as I showed sound judgment and responsibility to handle it.
This system worked out incredibly well, a system I want to emulate for my own children.
And to follow up on your point, my parents heavily controlled content I was allowed to consume, and slowly introduced me to making my own choices as I showed sound judgment and responsibility to handle it.
This system worked out incredibly well, a system I want to emulate for my own children.
I had the same treatment: but it worked less well for me (mostly due to not being drip fed choices).
When I left home for university (first time on my own) I had a break down within 6 months, simply couldnt cope.
I'm not sure I agree (though I know I am heavily biased) anything beyond a casual control is workable. People will naturally test boundaries - and the stricter you make them the more "underground" the response is. Im a big fan of keeping it casual so that what goes on is easy to spot - and if it goes too far stepping in heavily has more impact :)
But then, each to their own! I dont have kids yet so this could change :P
When I left home for university (first time on my own) I had a break down within 6 months, simply couldnt cope.
I'm not sure I agree (though I know I am heavily biased) anything beyond a casual control is workable. People will naturally test boundaries - and the stricter you make them the more "underground" the response is. Im a big fan of keeping it casual so that what goes on is easy to spot - and if it goes too far stepping in heavily has more impact :)
But then, each to their own! I dont have kids yet so this could change :P
> It makes as feel as though the casual absolute control we have over them is slipping
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.rape/msg/2db5c83cb619b1b...
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.rape/msg/2db5c83cb619b1b...
Minors are not capable of making sound decisions, which is why they should be treated differently (and usually are).
But, I disagree that this is the core issue. I believe that this is not a crime. At all. Not even a little bit. The idea that it is illegal for those under 18 to do anything sexual is wrong. It moves to preposterous when you start calling them sex offenders.
Why? Because it is a natural and normal part of growing up. The body secrets huge amounts of testosterone/estrogen during puberty. Humans are designed/programmed/whatever to start thinking about sex at this point.
Finally, because kids are actually people too. They do get to make decisions. Small ones at first, but bigger ones later. A 17-year-old that is going out with an 18-year-old should not have to break up with their significant other simply because of the magical 18th birthday.
great post!
I think the kid puts it best (and ironically in an extremely mature way) when he talks about how a split second decision screwed it all up. We talk about underage and minors because we are a lot older - but forget that to them that age divide is non-existant. At home with the guys, testosterone going, recieve a text from a girl that sounds a bit sexy - hey we've all done it. Difference is where it's "allowed" for us - for them it, apprently, isnt. Leaving the images on screen or w/e is, obviously, very thick but I struggle to see a serious crime. The boy's parents approach seemed the best of the lot......
Yes, nail whoever actually posted them publicly online (and perhaps lightly reprimand the guy for leaving his inbox open). That is the real crime - regardless of the age of the victim.
(ps sorry about spamming this topic: strong opinions here :D shout if it's too much)
I think the kid puts it best (and ironically in an extremely mature way) when he talks about how a split second decision screwed it all up. We talk about underage and minors because we are a lot older - but forget that to them that age divide is non-existant. At home with the guys, testosterone going, recieve a text from a girl that sounds a bit sexy - hey we've all done it. Difference is where it's "allowed" for us - for them it, apprently, isnt. Leaving the images on screen or w/e is, obviously, very thick but I struggle to see a serious crime. The boy's parents approach seemed the best of the lot......
Yes, nail whoever actually posted them publicly online (and perhaps lightly reprimand the guy for leaving his inbox open). That is the real crime - regardless of the age of the victim.
(ps sorry about spamming this topic: strong opinions here :D shout if it's too much)
Apparently him leaving the inbox open wasn't what spread them she sent those same pictures to other guys.
They should code into law the divide by 2 and add 14 rule :-)
Aside that viewpoint, "Child Porn" in many statutes include fully clothed youngsters doing what is 'not the norm for that age group'.
Pretty much any image of people under 18 can be considered Child Porn if that jury thinks so.
Pretty much any image of people under 18 can be considered Child Porn if that jury thinks so.
Actually not at all: well, definitely not in the UK.
Here we use the Copine scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copine_scale)
It's important to note the ONLY classification that images of clothed children can fall into is #1 (the least "worst" case). However to actually qualify the poses would have to be very sexually sxplicit. Child underwear models, for example, wouldnt normally get categorised there (obviously if there is more extreme indecent material they WOULD be appended as "relevant" images).
Your right the jury will be shown an image and if it has a child in it they will cry "OMG CP" but fortunately experts analyse all of the data first and ensure only real indecent images make it to the trial :)
I cant say 100% for the US but I believe things work in the same way.
EDIT; a colleague pointed me at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Test). Apparently in the US you lot are completely unable to make use of a simpel classification scale (I jest, I jest) so things are less cut and dried. In which case I guess your point stands.
I prefer our way.
Here we use the Copine scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copine_scale)
It's important to note the ONLY classification that images of clothed children can fall into is #1 (the least "worst" case). However to actually qualify the poses would have to be very sexually sxplicit. Child underwear models, for example, wouldnt normally get categorised there (obviously if there is more extreme indecent material they WOULD be appended as "relevant" images).
Your right the jury will be shown an image and if it has a child in it they will cry "OMG CP" but fortunately experts analyse all of the data first and ensure only real indecent images make it to the trial :)
I cant say 100% for the US but I believe things work in the same way.
EDIT; a colleague pointed me at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Test). Apparently in the US you lot are completely unable to make use of a simpel classification scale (I jest, I jest) so things are less cut and dried. In which case I guess your point stands.
I prefer our way.
Yes, the American way is essentially "I'll know it when I see it, so gimme more to look at!"
Sigh.
Sigh.
Your argument is more of a logical gambit than anything. I like it.
Another logical gambit is the observation that it's totally legal, in most states, to look at a naked 16 year old in person. Or to actually have intercourse with her.
Another logical gambit is the observation that it's totally legal, in most states, to look at a naked 16 year old in person. Or to actually have intercourse with her.
The justification for banning possession of child pornography was that you could draw a straight line from the images to an act of exploitation. The reason for the laws is not primarily to prevent the spread of the images; it's to prevent the exploitation of a child that lead to their production. When you have teenagers voluntarily snapping pictures of themselves, there is no act of exploitation. Sure, it's not something that should be encouraged, but it's not something that should destroy your life, either.
> The justification for banning possession of child pornography was that you could draw a straight line from the images to an act of exploitation
This was always transparently moronic. It has never been illegal to possess a picture of a murder, no matter how brutal.
This was always transparently moronic. It has never been illegal to possess a picture of a murder, no matter how brutal.
However, I take it almost no murders have ever been committed for the purpose of distributing pictures of them.
But I take it that most statutory rape happens less for economic reasons than most authorities/politicians would like us to believe. Most people that abuse/rape children do so because it has happened to them, not because they find it to be a way to make quick money.
"Then there were the things they could not control, such as the confiscation by police of the computer belonging to the dean of students at Alex’s school. The dean had requested the images in an effort to sort things out" --- haha...sure dean, sure. "sort things out"
I know its a joke here, but if that attitude really prevails, there will be no way at all to deal with this in a rational way at the level where it will do the most good.
We've already got a serious problem with over-escalation here. All this will do is make the people most able to deal with the problem too afraid even to acknowledge it.
Don't look, don't think, just call the Miniluv.
We've already got a serious problem with over-escalation here. All this will do is make the people most able to deal with the problem too afraid even to acknowledge it.
Don't look, don't think, just call the Miniluv.
It hardly matters. Ease of information transfer is here to stay, absent the demise of civilization, and there's nothing that can be done to legislate it in the long run. In the short run, there will be large, local disruptions, but I don't see a way to avoid that, and it seems reasonable that mocking authority figures will bring the long run sooner and thereby minimize such local disruptions.
True enough: but that is not something the dean is equipped to cope with on his own. They are pictures of minors and no matter his intentions requesting them (where from?) off his own back sounds like a bad move!
Get in with the police force (in all liklihood they would welcome his connection to the pupils) and provide suppor through that medium; that seems a more logical approach (what he did sounds like a half cocked investigation of his own - which is a bad idea full stop anyway :D).
As it is he will almost certainly be let off with a caution (provided nothing else is found) - but siezing it is all but mandatory. If nothing else to ensure the images are correctly destroyed.
Get in with the police force (in all liklihood they would welcome his connection to the pupils) and provide suppor through that medium; that seems a more logical approach (what he did sounds like a half cocked investigation of his own - which is a bad idea full stop anyway :D).
As it is he will almost certainly be let off with a caution (provided nothing else is found) - but siezing it is all but mandatory. If nothing else to ensure the images are correctly destroyed.
In the current environment, the dean's best course of action (provided he cares about the students and their futures) is to keep the images as far from the police as possible and try to handle it as quickly and quietly as he can.
Such is the sad but true we now find ourselves in.
Such is the sad but true we now find ourselves in.
It didn't happen at school, and it didn't involve school resources as far as I can tell from the article. The best course of action for the dean is to avoid dealing with the situation entirely.
There seems to be a common attitude among school administrators that anything involving students is their business. It is not.
There seems to be a common attitude among school administrators that anything involving students is their business. It is not.
can someone explain why Zak is +14 while i'm -7 and we basically said the same thing. it was a joke guys.
Because Zak just said it (clearly and understandably), and you tried to convey it through a vague and not-especially-funny witticism.
You also complained about getting downmodded, which is why you're at 0 here.
You also complained about getting downmodded, which is why you're at 0 here.
We are a serious board. We do not take kindly to irrational thought here on HN. When its a serious news post, its most likely taken serious when leaving comments. You were not serious and therefor got voted down. I almost consider you a troll for doing so.
you entrepreneurs are a serious bunch. I'll remember be solemn and serious in the future. I brought up a valid point though, random adults shouldn't be asking to see nude images and videos of teens, even if it is purportedly to help out. Its one thing for teens to send them to each other. Its an entirely different thing for a school administrator to request the images. There is no benefit for him doing this.
It's not a minor thing if naked pictures of your daughter are permanently circulating around Internet porn sites.
I have no other comment to make about the underlying issue here, and I am specifically not making a stand. I'm just saying, it's not a minor issue.
I have no other comment to make about the underlying issue here, and I am specifically not making a stand. I'm just saying, it's not a minor issue.
As a father with a daughter, I can imagine I would be very distraught. But, in this specific situation, if my daughter took pictures of herself, of her own volition and sent them out, it's really her decision. She might also get a tattoo or ride a motorcycle or even want to program in Java. My job is to educate her, get her ready to make big decisions and teach her that her decisions have real consequences.
>"...if my daughter took pictures of herself, of her own volition and sent them out, it's really her decision"
And that's the key here, isn't it? She wasn't coerced into these pictures. She may have been peer-pressured, but the article doesn't cover whether this is the norm in this school or not. I suspect not. She did it, she distributed the picture. What did she think it was going to happen?
Her father's quote is laughable: "This country has laws in place to protect children. Those laws need to be enforced, and parents need to pursue those laws to the fullest extent to protect their children." What the hell does he think happened here?
And that's the key here, isn't it? She wasn't coerced into these pictures. She may have been peer-pressured, but the article doesn't cover whether this is the norm in this school or not. I suspect not. She did it, she distributed the picture. What did she think it was going to happen?
Her father's quote is laughable: "This country has laws in place to protect children. Those laws need to be enforced, and parents need to pursue those laws to the fullest extent to protect their children." What the hell does he think happened here?
Indeed. In fact I think HE needs a good lesson in parenting. His daughter taking images of herself of her own accord and handing them out (to a single person the context seems to be a personal connection - but she sent them to 4 people = huge naivety, or sexual excitment/experimentation, or both) is naive. But if HE thinks it is wrong then he has obviously failed to instill that in his daughter........
Much of the failing, if there is one, seems to lie with her parent here.
Much of the failing, if there is one, seems to lie with her parent here.
[deleted]
Frustrated because he considers his parenting a failure, perhaps.
Her father is blaming someone else's child as being the 'bad egg', just like is frequently seen when a parent denies their child being a bully.
He's an incompetent parent who doesn't want to admit his daughter has turned into an eSlut sending multiple pornographic images and videos to multiple people at the same time. I'm sorry, but sending nude pics to your boyfriend is acceptable, sending it to a non-boyfriend is trashy, but 4 guys at the same time is just slutty.
He's an incompetent parent who doesn't want to admit his daughter has turned into an eSlut sending multiple pornographic images and videos to multiple people at the same time. I'm sorry, but sending nude pics to your boyfriend is acceptable, sending it to a non-boyfriend is trashy, but 4 guys at the same time is just slutty.
This kind of attitude (some third party with absolutely no business butting in deciding what is or isn't an "acceptable" way for another human being to express their sexuality) is exactly what got these kids into this legal mess.
> She might also get a tattoo or ride a motorcycle or even want to program in Java.
I just want to say thank you. That was the funniest thing I've read in a long time.
I just want to say thank you. That was the funniest thing I've read in a long time.
Agreed. But the statement from the father really really irks me:
“This country has laws in place to protect children. Those laws need to be enforced, and parents need to pursue those laws to the fullest extent to protect their children.”
The idea that destroying the rest of a young man's life because his daughter sent him a naked picture is just twisted. Being labeled as a sex offender is no small matter. It's much worse morally than going and beating the shit out of the kid (assuming no long-term damage). If convicted the kid's life is ruined.
Furthermore, if the law is going to protect his daughter (assuming some harm to her), then the proper application would be to prosecute his own daughter and send her to jail. Of course that's ridiculous too, but not as ridiculous as prosecuting the boy.
Now I understand the guy is upset and I don't totally blame him for acting irrationally, but the legal system needs to step in and set some precedents here.
“This country has laws in place to protect children. Those laws need to be enforced, and parents need to pursue those laws to the fullest extent to protect their children.”
The idea that destroying the rest of a young man's life because his daughter sent him a naked picture is just twisted. Being labeled as a sex offender is no small matter. It's much worse morally than going and beating the shit out of the kid (assuming no long-term damage). If convicted the kid's life is ruined.
Furthermore, if the law is going to protect his daughter (assuming some harm to her), then the proper application would be to prosecute his own daughter and send her to jail. Of course that's ridiculous too, but not as ridiculous as prosecuting the boy.
Now I understand the guy is upset and I don't totally blame him for acting irrationally, but the legal system needs to step in and set some precedents here.
"It's not a minor thing if naked pictures of your daughter are permanently circulating around Internet porn sites."
Maybe, maybe not; we might be moving toward a world in which this is closer to the norm than the exception.
Even if it isn't, I would observe that your daughter is an autonomous person with a will of her own: that others should be punished for her own voluntary acts seems ignorant at best and extraordinarily cruel at worst.
"I am specifically not making a stand."
Maybe not, but your first sentence implies otherwise.
Maybe, maybe not; we might be moving toward a world in which this is closer to the norm than the exception.
Even if it isn't, I would observe that your daughter is an autonomous person with a will of her own: that others should be punished for her own voluntary acts seems ignorant at best and extraordinarily cruel at worst.
"I am specifically not making a stand."
Maybe not, but your first sentence implies otherwise.
Just for the fun of it, why exactly is this not a minor issue? The pictures are (i presume) obviously amateurish, and from what I gather more erotic then actual porn. So in what way would having that videoclip on youporn or in a torrent affect her in a major way?
A worrying argument: what happens when her images make their way onto the CP networks and some crazy person decides he is madly in love and tracks her down (yes, this does happen).
If nothing else she is likely yo be inundated with lewd emails/messages/IM.
It wont be pleasant - but, then, in this case perhaps it is a life lesson she needs.....
If nothing else she is likely yo be inundated with lewd emails/messages/IM.
It wont be pleasant - but, then, in this case perhaps it is a life lesson she needs.....
> A worrying argument: what happens when her images make their way onto the CP networks and some crazy person decides he is madly in love and tracks her down (yes, this does happen).
She doesn't need nude pictures on a 'child porn network' for something like that to happen. Plain-clothes pictures of herself on a Facebook/MySpace page the is public could be enough. So I hardly see how this makes it an offense worth destroying the rest of someone's life over.
She doesn't need nude pictures on a 'child porn network' for something like that to happen. Plain-clothes pictures of herself on a Facebook/MySpace page the is public could be enough. So I hardly see how this makes it an offense worth destroying the rest of someone's life over.
They'll still be there when she's 35.
That's more or less a given, though they will be just one drop in an ocean. But still, how would they affect her? Because other then some really childish "have you seen her pic nacked from when she was 16?!" among a couple of coworkers, I honestly cannot think of anything.
Except that Google is really good at finding drops in the Ocean.
What if there had been nude pics of Obama on the internet, would they have hurt his chances for becoming president?
I think it depends on the job - not all women become secretaries.
What if there had been nude pics of Obama on the internet, would they have hurt his chances for becoming president?
I think it depends on the job - not all women become secretaries.
> What if there had been nude pics of Obama on the internet, would they have hurt his chances for becoming president?
Probably less then 20 years ago, and even less in 10 years. But yes, this is one possible consequence. Actions do have consequences, and it's parent's job to make sure they're not too grave.
But still, having some difficulty being elected into office isn't really a problem for 99% of all people. I was afraid someone would point out something serious I had overlooked, but if this is the worst of it, it means having your naked picture on the net isn't so big anymore.
Probably less then 20 years ago, and even less in 10 years. But yes, this is one possible consequence. Actions do have consequences, and it's parent's job to make sure they're not too grave.
But still, having some difficulty being elected into office isn't really a problem for 99% of all people. I was afraid someone would point out something serious I had overlooked, but if this is the worst of it, it means having your naked picture on the net isn't so big anymore.
I totally expect perceptions and expectations to shift in the future. Employers will have to realize that they hire human beings, not worker drones. In fact, maybe it will become creepy to not have any displays of being a human online.
In a recent Australian election, one of the candidates had an old boyfriend sell a set of semi-nude pictures taken in the 1970's into a paper. The paper, of course, ran them as a front-page news and everyone was left questioning the moral issue. Basically : so what?
End of the story was: she didn't get elected, but then she was unlikely to be elected anyway. And eventually she produced evidence that the photos were fake (by releasing a photo taken around the same date which showed her with a different haircut), and the papers had to retract the story and officially apologise, which they of course did after the election.
What I am saying here is that you don't need digital cameras and the internet to get nude photos circulated, and that I think it will become the norm for just about everyone to have embarassing photos lurking under the closet, and will become a non-issue for employment, politics and more. As long as it is plain-vanilla pics in your underwear, I doubt it would cause any long term effects.
End of the story was: she didn't get elected, but then she was unlikely to be elected anyway. And eventually she produced evidence that the photos were fake (by releasing a photo taken around the same date which showed her with a different haircut), and the papers had to retract the story and officially apologise, which they of course did after the election.
What I am saying here is that you don't need digital cameras and the internet to get nude photos circulated, and that I think it will become the norm for just about everyone to have embarassing photos lurking under the closet, and will become a non-issue for employment, politics and more. As long as it is plain-vanilla pics in your underwear, I doubt it would cause any long term effects.
You know, over on the less puritanical continent, actual nude models have been elected to high offices.
Hell, I seem to remember seeing Arnold naked in the Terminator movies and he still got himself elected Governor of California.
Hell, I seem to remember seeing Arnold naked in the Terminator movies and he still got himself elected Governor of California.
Name one other.
There is (or used to be) a former porn star in the Italian parliament.
So would any baby she might have had, or (some) sexually transmitted diseases she could have caught, also if she dropped out or failed out of HS, that'd still be there too.
Interestingly, those other things are not illegal.
Interestingly, those other things are not illegal.
While I agree, wouldn't "distribute naked pictures of someone" be a different matter than "distributing child pornography"?
It makes a really nice system of governance if people break laws early in their life, and "government" can tag them and monitor them for the rest of their life... if you represent the government.
And "child porn" brings in a lot of emotional baggage. We all think of Mr 40 year old kiddie diddling with a 9 or 10 year old. That's just gross. So politicians made laws to handle that. Of course, the young boy looking at porn was completely ignored. However, the other fact that was ignored completely is simple biology. We all know about 'adolescents' and their 'hormones', yet the laws ignored any idea of following biology. Instead these politicians follow the most puritanical belief set they can find.
And tell me: What politician wants to give up that much power, or "Let Those Evil Men Have Sex With Your Young Child" ?
Yes, Im cynical, only because I've seen this 'game' in many other areas of government. Alcohol, seat belts, Smoking, university funding, Roads... you name it.
And "child porn" brings in a lot of emotional baggage. We all think of Mr 40 year old kiddie diddling with a 9 or 10 year old. That's just gross. So politicians made laws to handle that. Of course, the young boy looking at porn was completely ignored. However, the other fact that was ignored completely is simple biology. We all know about 'adolescents' and their 'hormones', yet the laws ignored any idea of following biology. Instead these politicians follow the most puritanical belief set they can find.
And tell me: What politician wants to give up that much power, or "Let Those Evil Men Have Sex With Your Young Child" ?
Yes, Im cynical, only because I've seen this 'game' in many other areas of government. Alcohol, seat belts, Smoking, university funding, Roads... you name it.
Reading this I couldn't help but think that standardised, easy-to-use, end-to-end crypto could have prevented a lot of these cases. No way for the pictures to be intercepted by the law, no way for a "friend" to steal them out of the recipient's mailbox. Of course, trust only goes so far as a teenage boy's trustworthiness, but it's something.
The reason the friend was able to steal the pictures was because the recipient left his e-mail program open and unattended. End-to-end crypto is useless if either of the ends are compromised.
That is true, but I would imagine crypto-centric email software would have a timeout feature or similar to mitigate this.
From my point of view this is a kind of overreaction from the society to an existing problem where we mixing real criminals with kids. Based on that strict rules long generation could be criminalized... The magical figures of legal age are based on traditions but puberty comes way earlier nowadays with all the bad consequences. We are sending police officers after kids but there are no words against the girly image from the media which is far from innocent and a good inspiration for all the illegal behaviour. As a father of three I just hope the best that my kids will survive these years without an incident like that.
Maybe she shouldn't be such a slut. Just my two cents.
On top of it, the distribution wasn't intentional by the boyfriend. Why not go after those that did distribute it ie- his friends? May be hard to prove the computer was left open and "person x" did it.
Yes, it's horrible this happened, and I'd be pissed if I was a dad. I'd also try to be rational. Like Chris Rock said "Youve done a good job if you keep your daughter off the pole". Seems like this Dad is about to fail.
On top of it, the distribution wasn't intentional by the boyfriend. Why not go after those that did distribute it ie- his friends? May be hard to prove the computer was left open and "person x" did it.
Yes, it's horrible this happened, and I'd be pissed if I was a dad. I'd also try to be rational. Like Chris Rock said "Youve done a good job if you keep your daughter off the pole". Seems like this Dad is about to fail.
When I have a daughter, I want her to be able to do whatever she wants without worrying that society will judge her for actions that have harmed no one. Comments like yours make that less likely. Please stop.
I agree with you. I'm not for over protective parenting and kids should be able to have fun/express themselves without lots of judging.
Honestly though, there's probably a fine line somewhere. I think you can say that it might not be the best idea for your daughter at 14 to be sending around naked photos and stripteasing.
This could easily become a long argument and no one is wrong or right. Maybe it's more of a case of would rather and would rather not. Most people would probably agree that they would rather not have their 14 year old daughter sending around some naked photos and videos.
Honestly though, there's probably a fine line somewhere. I think you can say that it might not be the best idea for your daughter at 14 to be sending around naked photos and stripteasing.
This could easily become a long argument and no one is wrong or right. Maybe it's more of a case of would rather and would rather not. Most people would probably agree that they would rather not have their 14 year old daughter sending around some naked photos and videos.
I definitely wouldn't want my daughter to send around naked pictures of herself. However, if she did, that wouldn't make her a bad person, as "slut" connotes.
I don't think it connotes that to everyone. At least, to me, it only suggests high promiscuity, which isn't a bad thing in and of itself. Nor is it necessarily true in this case, but to those who formed our worldviews before omnipresent recording, sex-themed pictures of someone intuitively imply promiscuity. We'll just have to get over it; the world has changed.
I only read half the article, but from what I can tell:
- 14 year-old girl sends topless pics to multiple teenage peers.
- One of the recipients leaves his inbox open and his friend posts the images online.
- That same recipient gets arrested.
It seems like of those three people (the girl, the recipient, and the poster), the most-innocent one was the one that got arrested. That's bass-ackwards.
- 14 year-old girl sends topless pics to multiple teenage peers.
- One of the recipients leaves his inbox open and his friend posts the images online.
- That same recipient gets arrested.
It seems like of those three people (the girl, the recipient, and the poster), the most-innocent one was the one that got arrested. That's bass-ackwards.
you should have read the entire thing...
"That might have been the end of it, had the files not, as digital files will, leaked onto the Internet."
This makes it sound like the tubes were leaky that day and because the files were "digital," they just spread out over the Internet like an oil slick. Um, no. Files do not spread simply by virtue of being on a computer.
This makes it sound like the tubes were leaky that day and because the files were "digital," they just spread out over the Internet like an oil slick. Um, no. Files do not spread simply by virtue of being on a computer.
here is a case where we actually need DRM. the girl should have been able to secure the content and allow access to only those people she wished to grant it to - there is both nothing legally or morally wrong with that.
there is a tech angle to this story - and its about how we need solutions to stop unauthorized propagation of private content. DRM systems as already built into Windows and other systems would work perfect - it just needs to be standardized and rolled out across mobile and web platforms (most of it is based on open protocols)
It's a shame because we have the technology, it is just currently being applied in the wrong places
there is a tech angle to this story - and its about how we need solutions to stop unauthorized propagation of private content. DRM systems as already built into Windows and other systems would work perfect - it just needs to be standardized and rolled out across mobile and web platforms (most of it is based on open protocols)
It's a shame because we have the technology, it is just currently being applied in the wrong places
wow, isn't that a good idea!!! Startup idea for anyone who wants it.
No, it's a bad idea. It wouldn't work. Neither on a technical level (DRM on images is trivially circumvented), nor on a social level (idiots will always be idiots - no matter how many safeguards you build in, they always find a way around them).
And that's without even getting into the slippery slope aspects of DRM technology.
And that's without even getting into the slippery slope aspects of DRM technology.
no, it would work. it doesn't have to be DRM per se, just automated public key encryption and signing using something unique such as the phones IMEI number.
it is very possible to implement encryption and signing without having the user go through key generation etc. make it all transparent and give them a lock to click on if they want to make the message and attachments secure. PGP already has a similar product, and hushmail is pretty easy to use.
it is very possible to implement encryption and signing without having the user go through key generation etc. make it all transparent and give them a lock to click on if they want to make the message and attachments secure. PGP already has a similar product, and hushmail is pretty easy to use.
And what does that gain you? Nothing.
The image needs to be displayed on the receiving end. From that point the cat is out the bag, no matter how many locks you put on the bag.
The image needs to be displayed on the receiving end. From that point the cat is out the bag, no matter how many locks you put on the bag.
we are talking about propagation here. its built so that the person who receives the image is then unable to forward it to somebody else. or at least they can, but that person won't be able to unencrypt.
its pretty standard, and working with e-commerce for a while now.
its pretty standard, and working with e-commerce for a while now.
its pretty standard, and working with e-commerce for a while now.
In what area of "e-commerce" is that standard and working? I don't know of any but I know at least one where DRM was tried and failed miserably (music distribution).
Moreover I can only repeat that DRM is technically infeasible for images because the images need to be displayed on the clients screen. When your eyes can see it then the lens of your digicam can also see it. Get it?
In what area of "e-commerce" is that standard and working? I don't know of any but I know at least one where DRM was tried and failed miserably (music distribution).
Moreover I can only repeat that DRM is technically infeasible for images because the images need to be displayed on the clients screen. When your eyes can see it then the lens of your digicam can also see it. Get it?
wow, your on a completely different page - and im going to leave it at that.
This is just a clear illustration of the fallacy of our legal systems. I had a 2MP camera phone at ~13 years old, even at that time it was fully integrated to the cellular network and internet. Any picture I took could be sent to another phone or emailed on. I had a webcam on my own computer and vast knowledge of computers; I started on DOS at like 3 and was online long before the mass adoption of IM.