Ken Riel 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (49)

• On the post: Google Says It Will Remove Revenge Porn Results From Search… Raising Some Questions

  

  Ken Riel ( profile ), 22 Jun, 2015 @ 01:43pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A stupid decision on Google's part

  Knowing that it will be difficult to stop only means that we should get started working on a just and practical solution right away. This may sound laughable, but I am serious.
  
  The first step is identifying the problem.

• On the post: Google Says It Will Remove Revenge Porn Results From Search… Raising Some Questions

  

  Ken Riel ( profile ), 22 Jun, 2015 @ 01:29pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A stupid decision on Google's part

  We can substitute the term 'sexual assault' for rape. And obviously this would apply more to the person who originally let the images free. Perhaps just knowingly distributing them without being the original betrayer is more akin to being an accessory to a criminal act.
  
  Anyway, being involved in this betrayal is a wrong thing to do. The original perpetrators at least should face some degree of criminal scrutiny.
  
  And I am saying that supporting the distribution of these kinds of images is also wrong.
  
  And I'm saying that the only good way to correct this injustice is by granting licence for such images only to the persons depicted in the images.

• On the post: Google Says It Will Remove Revenge Porn Results From Search… Raising Some Questions

  

  Ken Riel ( profile ), 22 Jun, 2015 @ 01:07pm

  Re: Re: Re: A stupid decision on Google's part

  Revenge porn is most assuredly a kind of date rape.
  
  The kiddy porn thing is only a little hyperbolic, directly illustrating that these sorts of acts are an outrageous betrayal of social contract and Human trust.
  
  Seriously.

• On the post: Google Says It Will Remove Revenge Porn Results From Search… Raising Some Questions

  

  Ken Riel ( profile ), 22 Jun, 2015 @ 11:45am

  Re: A stupid decision on Google's part

  I agree with your take on de-listing to an extant. I'm arguing for an escalation, I'm saying that posting revenge porn is nearly the same thing as posting kiddy porn. I'm saying that giving consent to appear in an intimate image does not in any way imply consent to distribute that image, and for the person in possession of the intimate image to ignore that simple truth constitutes a kind of date-rape.

• On the post: Google Says It Will Remove Revenge Porn Results From Search… Raising Some Questions

  

  Ken Riel ( profile ), 22 Jun, 2015 @ 03:50pm

  The 'natural copyright' to intimate and/or sexual images is one of perpetual prerogative, the subject has an inalienable right to change their mind at any time for any reason, or even for no reason at all.
  
  Even if we have permission at one time to post an image, the subject still maintains the right to demand it be removed at any time. This might make it difficult to run a website or other business that uses these sorts of images as a product, but oh well.
  
  Posting an intimate or private image of a person without that person's direct permission should be a much more serious crime than posting a copy of a song that has already been sold ten thousand times to ten thousand others, no comparison.
  
  I'm not suggesting rights to digital depictions of ones body (DNA, iris, fingerprints included) are the only rights we have, I'm suggesting that this is where our natural Human rights should start in the new digital domain.

• On the post: Google Says It Will Remove Revenge Porn Results From Search… Raising Some Questions

  

  Ken Riel ( profile ), 22 Jun, 2015 @ 02:14pm

  It seems to me that "taking away their copyright" is a near effortless and risk free start to a practical solution.
  
  You're very right with the latter point. Please keep this in mind.

• On the post: Google Says It Will Remove Revenge Porn Results From Search… Raising Some Questions

  

  Ken Riel ( profile ), 21 Jun, 2015 @ 12:42pm

  Ideas into property... man I'm a doofus

• On the post: Google Says It Will Remove Revenge Porn Results From Search… Raising Some Questions

  

  Ken Riel ( profile ), 21 Jun, 2015 @ 12:38pm

  Humanity trumps IP

  You's guys is all wrong. It's not about copyright, It's about Human rights, and that has to trump any scheme that turns property into an idea.
  
  The subjects consent to be viewed is the core issue. It is a basic Human right not to be oogled for sexual purposes, or for any other purpose really. This is a basic element of respect for your neighbors and kind of a fundamental of civilization itself. From a Human or Humanitarian perspective it is simply the right way to do things.
  
  It is not OK to betray someones trust in this way just because your magic camera makes it easy to do so.
  
  Think of our social contract and how that works as we relate with each other. When we do identify someone we don't trust we isolate ourselves from them or them from us in some way. In our daily live we trust each other not to run into a dressing room and tear down the curtain deliberately exposing an individual to the world, even if it would be easy to do... especially if it would be easy to do.
  
  We don't tolerate child porn, and we shouldn't tolerate any other kinds of porn where the subjects are victims of a betrayal of Human trust.
  
  Simple.

• On the post: Google Says It Will Remove Revenge Porn Results From Search… Raising Some Questions

  

  Ken Riel ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2015 @ 07:34pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry but no.

  We're talking about revenge porn, but in reality this should apply to any intimate or private personal/sexual images. By definition, this would not generally include crowd scenes or artistic depictions of intimate acts. This would include images of Human beings in situations of personal trust. Being a party to that sort of trust and betraying it by openly exposing it is tantamount to criminal voyeurism or even sexual assault.
  
  If current statue doesn't reflect this then it damn well should.

• On the post: Google Says It Will Remove Revenge Porn Results From Search… Raising Some Questions

  

  Ken Riel ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2015 @ 03:26pm

  Re: Re: Re: Sorry but no.

  It is not speech. Because the personal images always belong to the person being depicted, it is an action.
  
  I an individual does not give permission to have their body viewed by others then viewing it anyway is uncool, and facilitating that viewing by others is a something of a criminal act.

• On the post: Google Says It Will Remove Revenge Porn Results From Search… Raising Some Questions

  

  Ken Riel ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2015 @ 03:18pm

  Re: Blowing that foot clean off

  Why must we conflate embarrassing with personal?
  
  One is a subjective quality, the other is not.

• On the post: Google Says It Will Remove Revenge Porn Results From Search… Raising Some Questions

  

  Ken Riel ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2015 @ 01:52pm

  Re: Re: Re: Identity is Fundamental

  Images of a private intimate, or sexually explicit nature are always the property of the individual(s) they portray, in perpetuity (I think that means forever), No exceptions.
  
  Viewing another's private parts is undeniably a kind of sexual act. If we can't agree on this we're denying some pretty simple truth about ourselves.
  
  In the physical world this is simple truth is well accepted. It is not OK to take any measure, against someone's wishes, that will result in seeing that someone's private parts, without the direct consent of the person who's private parts are being viewed. Ignoring this will always result in some form of sexual assault, or at least it should.
  
  Why then, it is any different in cyberspace? Why is it OK to post an image of someone's private parts for others to see? How is this any different than forcing an unwilling victim to disrobe in public?
  
  Further, it is generally accepted, in real life, that willingly agreeing to engage in an intimate act with another does not grant any sort of perpetual licence. The consent must be absolutely understood by both parties every single individual time the intimate act takes place.
  
  What I am suggesting, no, what I am stating, is that posting revenge porn is a near equivalent of giving the keys to you EX's apt to a rapist.
  
  I am also stating that posting sexually explicit images of others for profit is a form of pimping. The only person who should generally be allowed to post an intimate image of a Human body is the person who is being depicted in the image.
  
  Simple

• On the post: Google Says It Will Remove Revenge Porn Results From Search… Raising Some Questions

  

  Ken Riel ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2015 @ 11:19am

  Identity is Fundamental

  What if we were to consider obviously private images of an individual the private property of the individual(s) depicted in the images, which they obviously are?
  
  What if the very idea of intellectual property were to start somewhere in this neighborhood?

• On the post: Be Careful Not To Hire Conspiracy Theory Nuts To Run Your Social Media: The Shaquille O'Neal Story

  

  Ken Riel ( profile ), 17 Jun, 2015 @ 07:26pm

  Re:

  If this is OUR government, shouldn't we all be government shills?

• On the post: Be Careful Not To Hire Conspiracy Theory Nuts To Run Your Social Media: The Shaquille O'Neal Story

  

  Ken Riel ( profile ), 17 Jun, 2015 @ 07:10pm

  Re: Irrelevant

  "Opportunistic and greedy politicians and apathetic and/or cowardly citizens leading to the undermining of rights, that is the important part."
  
  Very well said, I would just like to ad that the right to not be blown up should extend beyond any political borders.

• On the post: Be Careful Not To Hire Conspiracy Theory Nuts To Run Your Social Media: The Shaquille O'Neal Story

  

  Ken Riel ( profile ), 17 Jun, 2015 @ 06:50pm

  Re: Re: Ever notice that "ISIS" just popped up out of nowhere into high visibility, organized into effective military units, and well supplied?

  'ISIS' (daesh) exists, as does this freewheeling discussion about the possibility that we have been deceived.
  
  Just saying

• On the post: Be Careful Not To Hire Conspiracy Theory Nuts To Run Your Social Media: The Shaquille O'Neal Story

  

  Ken Riel ( profile ), 17 Jun, 2015 @ 06:34pm

  Re: Re: Re: How do we define conspiracy?

  ...percolating through AND perturbing...
  
  I'm attempting to embrace my doofishenss, I need a little slack!

• On the post: Be Careful Not To Hire Conspiracy Theory Nuts To Run Your Social Media: The Shaquille O'Neal Story

  

  Ken Riel ( profile ), 17 Jun, 2015 @ 06:31pm

  Re: Re: How do we define conspiracy?

  My point is that the word has has become something of a laughingstock, even though there are genuinely harmful and unjust conspiracies percolating and through perturbing our government and our economy everywhere.
  
  A self imposed conspiracy of confusion

• On the post: Be Careful Not To Hire Conspiracy Theory Nuts To Run Your Social Media: The Shaquille O'Neal Story

  

  Ken Riel ( profile ), 17 Jun, 2015 @ 11:28am

  How do we define conspiracy?

  Honest question, I'm not looking for a dictionary definition, we all know that... what we need is to establish what set or sets of conditions need to be in place before we can apply the 'conspiracy' label to a Human endeavor?
  
  It seems to me that if any 2 or more actors/agents discuss plans involving another set of actors/agents without including the second set in their discussion then that scenario would constitute something like what the word conspiracy means?
  
  Perhaps the more important distinction is whether or not the plan involves a real or perceived negative consequence for the parties that are not included in the discussion?
  
  Does the word conspire always have a negative connotation? ...I think it kind of does.
  
  Maybe, if we have absolute trust in authority then we can assume that they are just 'planning for us, without our knowledge' ...the trouble with that is, ...I'm still struggling with the definition of 'authority' itself.
  
  Transparency anyone?

• On the post: DailyDirt: Cyborgs All Around Us

  

  Ken Riel ( profile ), 31 Oct, 2014 @ 09:22am

  We have been cyborgs since day one

  Language is technology, cooking is technology, clothing is technology. Tools and techniques of any kind are purposeful extensions of our bodies and/or minds. We are and allways will be 'cyborgs', forever fated to the process and reward of creating a better version of ourselves.

Next >>