'Creep Shots' is a worrying new trend targeting women in public | Hacker News Reader

'Creep Shots' is a worrying new trend targeting women in public

blog.cryptoaustralia.org.au

15 pointsophelia14 comments

Are creepshots news? These threads on 4chan have been going on for as long as this oldf*g can remember.

Are we really willing to allow this to be considered "sexual cyber violence"?

Taking a photograph of someone in public is a legal act (in the USA anyway)? Being in public necessarily puts you into the public domain with no expectation of privacy.

Can we agree that taking photographs of people without their consent is nothing more than extremely creepy? This isn't violence at all. That word is very dangerous. When misapplied, it leads the uninformed to make bad decisions, expecting that they can respond to "sexual cyber violence" with actual physical violence.

I agree, the scope creep of "violence" is suspicious, and likely to dilute the meaning of the word. Now, when someone complains of violence, have to clarify "you mean physical violence?" to make sure I'm not being misled..

Same here. In this case, the misapplication of "sexual violence" is even more shocking. The idea that taking a picture of a girl on the beach is in the same realm of offense as sexual assault is asinine. The same misapplication of terms lets monsters like the antifa protestors, Dylan Roof, and others claim they are responding to violence, and thus initiate force against media, police, and others.

> Can we agree that taking photographs of people without their consent is nothing more than extremely creepy?

In public? I'd replace "nothing more than" with "at worst".

These, for example, I don't think most people would consider creepy: https://petapixel.com/2017/01/28/40-best-street-photos-2016-...

That certainly could have been better worded, but in context we aren't talking about photographers with nice cameras like were certainly used to take those pictures.

We are talking about spy cameras or cellphones generally used in a surreptitious manor to conceal the fact that ladies are being filmed/photographed.

IMO, if you don't want to be photographed while scantily clad in public, don't go into public scantily clad. People want the freedom of walking around in skin tight clothes that expose the curves of every piece of their anatomy to all that who can see without the consequences of exposing the same to all who can see. Apparently public shaming isn't enough and they need to call on the fringe "everything is violence" crowd to bring illegal actual physical violence into the mix. :(

Note: I have no problem with anyone wearing anything they want. I totally support it. I just dislike this topic being treated as news here.

We have GCHQ taking over people's webcams[1] using taxpayer money but of course that's not a problem at all because we have much more "important" problems. I know Europe[2] has different standards of privacy but with Theresa May as the prime minister in London and a similarly evil person in charge in Australia, we really need to focus on what is important.

Sure, I don't like invasion of privacy either. That being said, can I count on OP's support for a campaign to get the governments to stop taking over our cameras and microphones?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optic_Nerve_%28GCHQ%29 [2] I know Australia is not in European continent but it might as well be for all I care [3] And yes, of course I know Australia gained independence from the UK but it doesn't matter for this conversation

Hopefully this doesn't lead to some overblown moral panic for an issue that is almost non-existent.

Photographers already have to be incredibly careful when shooting anywhere children (even fully clothed, rather than at a swimming pool) are present for fear of paranoid parents and overzealous police officers.

It'd be nice if I could phrase this in a way that doesn't sound like a slippery-slope argument, although I suppose that could be indicative of something...

Soon those people will ask than men are segregated away and that we build "safe spaces" on campuses and gender-split schools, a bit like in 1850.

And Saudi Arabia

The article jumps around the issue so much, that I have no idea what the actual problem is (pictures of clothed women in public? The horror!).

Rater than flag it, here's the link to the Urban Dictionary entry, (bluntly) explaining what they are actually talking about:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=creepshot

I should note that it isn't usually a close up. It's often just pictures of unsuspecting individuals (almost always female.)

The "problem" is that some pervs like to use these types of non-nude images as visual stimuli for auto erotic activities.

The only legal issue I see is when the photographs are of underage girls in sexually provocative poses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COPINE_scale

In the UK, the COPINE scale applies to such images and may classify them depending on the individual images.

In the USA, the law is more nebulas. Interpretation of the poses and the context of distribution would probably come into play. IANAL

On the other side of the same scale there was Bill Cunningham.

And Miroslav Tichý on the very other end.

IIRC we had the whole moral outrage over this a year or two ago.

Reddit ended up banning these folks. And of course, surprise, surprise, they rebranded into "Fashion Advice" and are still - hard - at it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com