"Is Anyone Up?"-Yay or Nay?

[Junkenstein]

internet and boundaries? hahahahahahahaha. oh campy.

[FletchLives]

Yeah, but the fact is once you send anything to a device that is not yours, it can be public domain.
For example: Cops must have a warrant to view anything that is on your phone without your consent right? But how many times have we seen people's texts and voice messages in the news?
It's because once the texts, voice messages, pictures, or whatever has left your device under your will it is now property of the owner of the device it now resides on. So the owner has no more right than the holder to do with their property as they please.

[dEadERest]

Originally Posted by Lord of the Cock Rings

the real crime here is how low resolution most of the pics are.

.

[the1thepwnly]

Originally Posted by amyuilani

How does a private conversation between two people become public domain? I know there are a lot of legalities, some I remember discussing in class, but a third person taking a private conversation public can still be an invasion of privacy.

The third party is not snooping through people's phones and hacking shit to get the pictures. The pics on the site are being send and submitted by one of the two original parties (or somehow got invited into the network by a branch of the original parties.

[campy]

Junk...Campy <---naive = fact

I am intrigued those...I'm just a voyeur

[FletchLives]

The site started as a way for people to see the genitals of people in bands or people well known in the music scene. Now it's pretty much anyone.

[amyuilani]

Originally Posted by the1thepwnly

The third party is not snooping through people's phones and hacking shit to get the pictures. The pics on the site are being send and submitted by one of the two original parties (or somehow got invited into the network by a branch of the original parties.

That makes even less sense. A message intended for the private use of the two parties participating in the conversation becomes an invasion of privacy when one of the parties transmits the messages to a third party without the consent of the original party involved. The same can be said for text, photos, videos, emails, or anything else otherwise intended for private use.

[dEadERest]

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

its definitely creepy and wrong

creepy maybe, wrong, no way. as the prophet Bill Hicks said, evolution didn't end when we grew thumbs, now we are evolving ideas. the idea evolving here is privacy. keep track of your shit.

Originally Posted by amyuilani

transmits the messages to a third party without the consent of the original party involved

is that consent requirement specified or even implied somehow? no.
possession
law
deal

Amanda Curtis FTW

[FletchLives]

Originally Posted by amyuilani

That makes even less sense. A message intended for the private use of the two parties participating in the conversation becomes an invasion of privacy when one of the parties transmits the messages to a third party without the consent of the original party involved. The same can be said for text, photos, videos, emails, or anything else otherwise intended for private use.

Let's put it this way, you gave me a gift, lets say it was a box of cookies. I take that box of cookies and leave it open in the break room at my work. Is that wrong? No. Are my coworkers taking your cookies? No. You gave them to me, which means they are mine to do whatever I want with. In the same way, if you send something to someone's phone, it is their property. The illegality that you are describing would only be true if you had a represented copyright on your picture.

PS: I just lol'd at work from typing "Are my coworkers taking your cookies?"

[the1thepwnly]

Originally Posted by amyuilani

That makes even less sense. A message intended for the private use of the two parties participating in the conversation becomes an invasion of privacy when one of the parties transmits the messages to a third party without the consent of the original party involved. The same can be said for text, photos, videos, emails, or anything else otherwise intended for private use.

Yes, but it's not an invasion of privacy on the part of the site's owner. It is a breach of the privacy based on the sender's implied trust by the original party member who shared the information.