

How to Shut Down Reddit's CreepShots: Name Names - roguecoder
http://jezebel.com/5949379/naming-names-is-this-the-solution-to-combat-reddits-creepshots

======
Jun8
This should be upvoted so that it can be discussed on HN, since I think it is
a _dangerous_ trend. For some reason the previous story about violentacrez's
outing didn't get too much discussion: <http://hackerne.ws/item?id=4647116>

The irony is that the creep hunters, e.g. "Samantha" themselves want to remain
anonymous.

But aside for that, although I find CreepShots and the like abhorrent, e.g. a
teacher posting photos of his students online, I find what people like
"Samantha" are doing almost equally bad. Contacting people's employers and
esp. the police on an alleged crime as _the first step_ seems not only cruel
and unusual punishment but may in fact may be illegal. What if "Samantha"
makes an error in her identification and contacts _my_ employer?

I don't want to comment on the "In my personal opinion, not all speech
deserves to be protected..." comment, which has hundreds of years of debate on
it. But "Samantha's" assertion that

"But Samantha believes that CreepShots is a gateway drug to more dangerous
hobbies. Fetishizing non-consent "indicates [that CreepShots posters] don't
view women as people, and most will not be satisfied with just that level of
violation," she said. "I want to make sure that the people around these men
know what they're doing so they can reap social, professional, or legal
consequences, and possibly save women from future sexual assault. These men
are dangerous."

is quite indefensible, to me. The idea that porn (not that these pictures are
porn) will lead to predatory behavior was the leading cry of old-school
feminism, but is not so widely accepted.

~~~
tzs
> The idea that porn (not that these pictures are porn) will lead to predatory
> behavior was the leading cry of old-school feminism, but is not so widely
> accepted.

True, but I don't think the creepshot situation is comparable. In the porn
case, you have material produced with the consent of the participants
(ideally). Those arguing against it are using a speculative argument that some
viewers might be led to predatory behavior from it.

In the creepshots case, the material is produced without the consent of the
subjects, and is arguably obtained by people who are engaging in predatory
behavior and rewarding them for that behavior. The link between creepshots and
predators is thus not speculative, and it is combined with a gross violation
of the privacy of the subjects of the photos.

Furthermore, the acceptance of creepshots harms all of us in the United
States. A key aspect of our Constitutional protections against unreasonable
intrusion in our private affairs by the government is the notion of a
reasonable expectation of privacy.

When we, as a society, decide that some particular loss of privacy is
acceptable that moves the bar a little on what the government is allowed to
do.

See this fantastic article by Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals on how we are giving up our privacy voluntarily and how that
is giving more power to the government:
[http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-
paradox/dead...](http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox/dead-
past)

~~~
Jun8
I agree with the gist of your "without consent of subjects" comment, these
people should be vilified for posting peoples' photos, with unwanted tags,
e.g. "hot teen". This should be the major thrust of the movement against
creepshotting. The link to predator-ship is not so clear to me.

In any case, I detest the Hammurabi-like "let me give you a taste of your own
medicine" approaches. The correct reaction, for me, should be against Reddit,
the company.

~~~
calciphus
" The correct reaction, for me, should be against Reddit, the company."

And similarly, against Facebook, G+, or Twitter for the content of their
users. Anytime anyone posts something on a commercial site that we don't agree
with, we should turn to the infrastructure provider for censorship!

Is Reddit responsible for censoring the user-generated content of their site,
provided it is not breaking any laws? I was pretty certain we had a mountain
of case law to the contrary.

------
p_sherman
Of course Gawker would soy that.

