With Cameraphones, Scorn Is Just A Snap Away

from the crowd-rule dept

Wed, Apr 26th 2006 1:54pm — Joseph Weisenthal

As the internet allows for the rapid diffusion of information and easy coordination of large groups of individuals, a rise in vigilantism seems inevitable. We saw this last year when Digg users helped to drive a sleazy online photo store offline. In New York, one site has been set up exclusively to publicly shame men who expose themselves to women. The ubiquity of cameraphones helps this task immensely, as women can instantly snap pictures of offending creeps, and send them to the site. While the threat of being exposed (no pun intended) on the internet may serve as a powerful deterrent for would be flashers, there are some problems with this kind of justice. One worrisome aspect of vigilantism isn't the outcome per se, but the fact that targets of it are afforded none of the due process to which they'd be entitled under the courts. If a picture misrepresents a situation, or if a person's name is wrongly associated with a blurry photo, there's almost no way for them to get recourse. At least if a court makes a mistake the ruling can be reversed. It would seem that attacking someone's character or business online shouldn't be completely without cost should the accusations prove baseless. Furthermore, while nobody has any tolerance for flashers, what do we do with regards to other kinds of behavior that people would like to keep private. Would it be ok if a group posted pictures of anyone who entered into an adult bookstore, or, to use an example from the above article, an abortion clinic? Though these questions are complex, and raise many legal and ethical questions, much of this debate has been anticipated in discussions of sousveillance. If technology seems bound to erode privacy, then perhaps the next best situation state is one in which everyone can watch everyone else. This includes the right of individuals to watch the state, making abuses of power more difficult. Unfortunately, discussions of sousveillance seem to have an element of utopianism to them. In the real world, reputations can be unfairly destroyed, and some things are worth keeping private.

12 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Biker John, 26 Apr 2006 @ 2:22pm

I've got some great pictures of my bike....before the crash.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave Stanford, 26 Apr 2006 @ 4:29pm

Good post
A very nuanced and balanced post on TechDirt. Congrats for considering both sides of the mob rule argument -- people do things that deserve shaming, but mob rule also gets out of hand. Further, who gets to decide what rules the mob applies? Mob rule is great so long as you agree with the mob.

In a way one could look at the rise of the Internet as giving power back to the people -- groups of people now have the power to inflict justice on individuals (flashers in NYC) and businesses (camera scams). The problems occur when the mob goes too far (how much punishment is enough?) or people disagree strongly about the end result (should we "shame" abortion doctors?).

It'll be interesting to see how these issues play out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave Stanford, 26 Apr 2006 @ 4:31pm

Unrelated -- way to "flag" or mark stories?
This reminds me -- in the next TechDirt redesign it might be interesting to have a way to mark or flag stories of interest for later retrieval. It would obviously require creating an account, but maybe allow both account and non-account comments? Totally unrelated, but I was bookmarking this story and thought of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris, 26 Apr 2006 @ 7:40pm

"flags"
You just answered your own question. Bookmark the pages you want, then when you no longer care about the story, delete the bookmark. Much easier for you to take 0.7seconds to press Ctrl+D than having TechDirt create code and store data so everyone can flag a page.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dorpus, 26 Apr 2006 @ 7:49pm

Reminds me
I did a summer internship at the FBI many years ago, and heard the tale of a bank robber who held up a bank on payday. That just happened to be payday at the FBI field office next door, and it was lunch hour, when the bank was filled with a few dozen FBI agents cashing their checks. When the bank robber pointed a gun at the bank teller, clickclickclickclickclickclick, a few dozen guns were pointed at him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
EdB, 27 Apr 2006 @ 12:05am

Re: "flags"
Yeah right. Try this: much nicer of techdirt to build in flagging than to expect every visitor to add bookmarks to articles on hundreds upon hundreds of websites techdirt visitors might also visit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Todd, 27 Apr 2006 @ 2:09am

RE: With Cameraphones, Scorn Is Just...
This is an excellent post - props to the author.

Yes, good things ( woman posting pics of flashers ) and bad things ( zelots posting pics of women entering abortion clinics ) can come from people powered technology...

...but in the grand scheme of things I would rather have too much than not enough, or worse, none at all.

Also, imagine all of the things considered in this article, but replace static cameraphone generated images with the new abiltiy to broadcast live video using a mobile phone:

...ComVu has created the world's first live video broadcast solution from a mobile device to a global audience. ( more at comvu dot com )

It reminds me of the 80s tv show Max Headroom.

T
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2006 @ 8:12am

> Yes, good things ( woman posting pics of flashers )

Don't forget about men posting pictures of woman flashers: girlsgonewild.com.

Don't you love the double standard of naked men = bad, naked women = good. Granted, I'm straight so I don't go for the naked men, but objectively, why is one bad and the other good?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr. Magoo, 27 Apr 2006 @ 12:49pm

Re:
> why is one bad and the other good?

Because in this case the naked men are imposing themselves upon unwilling women. In the case of GGW, the men are more than willing to see the girls with low self esteem show their stuff.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2006 @ 10:02am

In New York, one site has been set up exclusively to publicly shame men who expose themselves to women.
That site is an example of what can go wrong. According to their FAQ, they will only publish photos of me, including photos of men claimed to have only said something rude to a woman. They will NOT, for example, publish ANY photos of women harassing men. In other words, it is very sexist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2006 @ 10:04am

Re:
That "me" above should have been "men".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2006 @ 11:15pm

Re: Re:
"That "me" above should have been "men"."
Sure... lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]