Be Excellent To Each Other

/thread.

asface has turned blatant troll so no more interaction with him from here on.

Because naked men are not attractive unless airbrushed and they've remembered to take their socks off. Unlikely with something snapped on a mobile. Women, on the other hand, look lovely regardless.

That's a bit sexist, plenty of ladies use the airbrush as well

Yes, but they look often look lovely whether they do or don't. Generally, men are just happy to be seeing a naked lady regardless. We're simple that way.

Blokes, on the other hand, are almost universally unattractive when nekkid without digital assistance. As it were.

Not sure if serious...

I'll bite anyway, though - I would imagine that women find men attractive when naked - and without digital assistance, as it were.

I think it's fair to say that if women were as interested in seeing naked men as men are in seeing naked women, there would be considerably more sites dedicated to that purpose. Supply and demand and that.

Are there many sites aimed at women for that sort of stuff, I guess if you goggled naked men most of the hits would be gay sites ??

Naked men are attractive, but a naked man I'm in a relationship with is infinitely more of a turn on than a naked random person would be.

I appreciate an attractive man but a picture of one wouldn't do anything for me at all, and I'd prefer to look at ones that had pants on if I was going to sit and look at images of them. Although I can't really imagine just looking at pictures of naked men. Whereas men seem to get turned on by looking at naked women, or at least act like they do.

I don't know if I'm typical of most women in that regard.

The large selection of erotic novels suggests to me that the ladies get their jollies in a different way.

Fucking hell. There should be a cull.

"i think u are a disgrace and a bad influence to youth, why should u make videos and pics? You breached ur own privacy bitch"
"one more thing, i will be masturbating to your PHOTOS if that makes u feel even worse. BITCH"

You don't know if you're typical of most women in that regard either?

True, some days I feel more women than others..

You know that Craster doesn't use the term 'cull' lightly.

Relevant point: Do we think users should have a right to privacy online, which enables venomous trolls to spout such abuse with impunity, or should everyone be ultimately identifiable so they can be held personally to account for such comments?

It's very often the case that as soon as one of these pathetic little shits are unmasked and named by some investigating authority, they're suddenly overcome with remorse and regret for something inevitably said 'in the heat of the moment' blahblahexcuse.

I don't think anything that person said was in any way actionable, though it was abhorrent. It would be nice to think that someone who knows him and sees his twitter feed took ten minutes out of their day to stop by his house and punch him in the face.

I honestly don't know. Anonymity allows twats to be twats with little to no comeback, which isn't good. However anonymity also affords protection to the would be persecuted, be that because of who they are, or what they have done or are doing which may be morally right but against the will of those "in charge", or other similar situations.

I think the later is worth protecting, but to do that we enable the former. I think it's a price worth paying... I think...

Brooke Magnanti has published a number of articles and has given a few talks about anonymity and trolling (One i remember is a specific one from last year I think at a university when she talked a lot about the background and history of trolling and being anonymous online and before online existed)

A short basic article : http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-broo ... 45091.html

A number of repeated points in here but a much longer article : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/98 ... nhood.html

** edit ** found the one I was thinking of it was a tedx talk

"In Defence of Anonymity: Brooke Magnanti at TEDxEastEnd"



And her talk on Trolls from the Hay-on-Wye festival

http://iai.tv/video/why-trolls-matter?u ... ign=buffer

If we were all anonymous we'd all be on an equal footing. But we aren't.

That's one way to get arrested.

All with permission

EPIC BANTZ

They give bantz a bad name. This makes apple pie sad

I have no idea what you people are talking about now. I presume you refer to Commander Bantz Craddock, as you're all American Military buffs.

Is this the bantz Fury was looking for?

http://eprotoeu.mtiny.com/article.ftl?id=575121&cc=ND

Quite a good article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29039294

Apple confirms that the accounts were compromised, but not via the script that used Find my IPhone

Still find it hard to believe that 100 people had weak passwords and emails that made it obvious who they were and that somebody just "guessed" the lot.

This has more details on how it might have been done: https://www.nikcub.com/posts/notes-on-t ... ata-theft/

Ooooooooh dear.

uh-oh. Was there not a case recently where the girl who took the photos was done for taking them as she was under age? Or was I reading the Daily Mail?

Also, "and other underage celebrities"? Is reddit a hotbed of nude photos of under age celebs??

Apple do have some gaps to fill, with IOS 7 they introduced security that will not allow the device to be wiped if the user has enabled find my Iphone without the username and password. I have an IPad that was returned to me from a user at another site some months after she left, its now a door stop as Apple refused to help (unless you buy the device from them) On the other side it looks to be quiet easy to get hold of the same details to access accounts.

She was 16 when they were taken, in the UK it wouldn't be underage but in the US the age of consent is 18 most places.

These were posted by an ex boyfriend the 4Chan post said, so not sure they are grouped with the "hacking"

The age of consent may be 16 but for "indecent images of a child" the line is drawn at 18.

There was a definitely a case in the US where this happened. I'm not sure if it's happend here.


Indeed - unless the photo is taken by your spouse for his or her personal use, weirdly.


Whilst this is obviously even worse of a privacy invasion for the individuals concerned, I'm hugely amused at how this will effect all the "well she was asking for it" type arguments by asfishneanderthal trolls. And I'm also amused that all the sad bastards who've gone to the trouble of dinding and downloading this stuff have now committed a fairly serious criminal offence - from internet warrior to nonce in one easy step.

I never said anyone was asking for anything, I said that they should be more aware of the need for strong passwords.

I find it amazing that people in the public eye would take the risk of having these sorts of pictures in any sort of format, given that careers and sponsorship deals often depend on people been seen as "squeaky clean"

The all have every right do what they like in their own homes, but for famous people it can come back and bite them in the arse.

At what point though. Say Mr fish had earlier posted it publicly here rather than privately. Anyone who then looked at this thread would've then downloaded it without any intention to. Does that make them guilty? Or if some malicious bugger had put it into an otherwise innocuous program installation, leaving people who don't go looking through what they've installed with something illegal that they're unaware of on their disk. Or indeed, having ones computer compromised by something that stores stuff off the internet with no intention from the computers owner.

Again, the easiest route is simple avoidance, but criminality of this kind of thing without intention doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

If you delete it straight away after accidentally downloading it, it's OK. If you store it for more than is reasonable ("Shit, it's kiddy porn, delete!") seems to be reasonable according to a recent case, then it is a crime.

Don't forget that if you watch a video, and it turns out to be porn and you switch it off straight away, and five minutes into that video someone underage comes on, you're just as guilty as if you watched the whole thing.

You might not even know. I could stick hundreds of images into your computer using Beex and you'd never see them.

Say whut. You got a source for that? I mean, I can sort of understand it, but it doesn't sound right in my head this morning.

surely in the event you were caught with said pictures then the resulting forensics carried out on your PC would show they were put on your HD from Beex on a given date and would also show if they had ever been opened or viewed from the date they were copied over?

They'd just be in the browser cache along with anything else you might have looked at on a web page. Unless the law is specifically trying to disproportionately punish people for IT illiteracy who lack the knowledge to delete these files then I'm not sure what would actually happen in court.

I think browser cacxhe is classed as temporary. If memory serves

I think they have to prove more than this, sort of intent really. A mate of mine used to tell me that he often downloaded stuff years ago from Limewire and other P2P apps that was named after a kids film and 20 minutes in tuned into a porno. There must be a difference in downloading and viewing a film called say Lion King that turns out to contain illegal porn and downloading something were the name makes it clear what it is. I suppose people might misname things to stop them been removed, so I guess you would also need to delete it immediately as well

Servers serve - the clue is in the name.

It was on an article I read (it was talking about mainly about violent porn, which has been outlawed in the US), I'll see if I can dig it up.

Fucked if I'm going to look for it while I'm at work, though - can you imagine the search terms?

It makes sense though - there's no way to tell how much of the video you watched, so they just assume you've watched it all.

Here's a question. Imagine a 16-year old couple send each other naked pictures. Presumably they're both culpable for viewing child pornography?