One Woman's Dangerous War Against the Most Hated Man on the Internet • Hacker News Board

Re: One Woman's Dangerous War Against the Most Hated Man on the Internet

#201

Post by mcv » Mon, Nov 25, 2013, 10:48 AM UTC

tluyben2 wrote: post #193

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't that just blah blah and not the point here? The constant boogeyman in this thread is that Moore's abuse based upon sexual mores would be impossible in Europe. I think that is nonsense.

It is part of the point; if it would be normal (which it is here) to see breasts, this instance would not be as big a deal as it is. You would not lose your job for it nor would anyone care or even point it out if it's just breasts or ass. Hence making Moore his business impossible unless he can get spread shots or sex shots; people who take/film those can expect to have them surface these days. If Moore doesn't, som…

A lot of people would still consider this extremely embarassing. It wouldn't be as devastating in most of Europe as it would be in the US, but it'd still hurt.

But no matter what the cultural mores are, it still needs to be very illegal, and these psychos need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And if the law doesn't extend far enough to put them behind bars, the law needs to be changed to stop this.

Re: One Woman's Dangerous War Against the Most Hated Man on the Internet

#202

Post by mcv » Mon, Nov 25, 2013, 10:59 AM UTC

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #133

jrockway wrote: post #30

The story kind of jumps around and I read it in parts, but I'm confused about the outcome. He basically went into hiding and suffered no consequences? What worries me more deeply is how society provides people like Moore with the ammunition they need to terrorize women. One victim complained that she would lose her children over the nude pictures. Even if they were actually of her, why does someone have to fear the g…

Well, I agree the narrative s a bit hard to follow. I doubt anyone will lose ther kids because of that ... That is a very hard thing to do in the US. You essentially need categorical evidence if being a crackhead and even then ...

I've read some totally crazy stories about people losing their kids in the US. Photos of breastfeeding or bathing (child porn!), playing outside (irresponsible!), and who knows what else. And that was without existing divorce and custody issues.

Re: One Woman's Dangerous War Against the Most Hated Man on the Internet

#203

Post by mcv » Mon, Nov 25, 2013, 1:58 PM UTC

michaelochurch wrote: post #50

What's really sick is the personality cult around this creep, even after the end of IAU. I had originally assumed that the "I love Hunter" posts that appear on the Internet on the topic were him-- he's a troll; trolls do that-- but apparently he has real-life fans. It's basically the Shawn Parker story. No real accomplishments, but active participation in the party scene leads to high status. If this current incarnat…

> If this current incarnation of the VC-funded bubble hasn't crashed, in 3 years he'll be part of the "tech" in-crowd and people here will be discussing his new venture capital fund.

> I, for one, will never take investment from any VC firm that employs Hunter Moore as a Managing Partner.

Surely, there's no chance of that actually happening? He's going to end up bankrupt behind bars, right?

Re: One Woman's Dangerous War Against the Most Hated Man on the Internet

#204

Post by rakoo » Mon, Nov 25, 2013, 10:32 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #179

rakoo wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> copyright violation I tend to be on the opinion that all forms of art are in the public domain by default, unless explicitely stated. So, there would be no breach of copyright here. However, there is a clear breach on privacy rights, and I'm scared no one in the article or here seems to think that this is the reason why Moore should be prosecuted. The author says than more than half of her contacts are on the site…

>> I tend to be on the opinion that all forms of art are in the public domain by default, unless explicitely stated. So, there would be no breach of copyright here. This is factually incorrect. There is copyright on any and all creations unless explicitly licensed otherwise. This is under the Berne convention. In the US you can register copyrighted works but only to access the higher punitive damages for infringement…

Yeah, I was more stating what I think should be the norm (copyright is opt-in, not opt-out). Under the current system, this is clearly copyright violation... but why is it the first thing that comes to mind to build a defense ? How come there is a process for rapidly defending your copyrights, and not something similar for your private life ?

Of course I know the answers. I'm just sad about that.

Re: One Woman's Dangerous War Against the Most Hated Man on the Internet

#205

Post by Nursie » Mon, Nov 25, 2013, 11:56 PM UTC

rakoo wrote: post #204

Nursie wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I tend to be on the opinion that all forms of art are in the public domain by default, unless explicitely stated. So, there would be no breach of copyright here. This is factually incorrect. There is copyright on any and all creations unless explicitly licensed otherwise. This is under the Berne convention. In the US you can register copyrighted works but only to access the higher punitive damages for infringement…

Yeah, I was more stating what I think should be the norm (copyright is opt-in, not opt-out). Under the current system, this is clearly copyright violation... but why is it the first thing that comes to mind to build a defense ? How come there is a process for rapidly defending your copyrights, and not something similar for your private life ? Of course I know the answers. I'm just sad about that.

I agree with most of your comment, except for the opt-in part. If I send you a picture of my vacation, I'm not giving you unlimited license to profit from it as you please.

In the case in question the picture wasn't even published or sent to another individual, so various computer breaking-and-entering laws would also apply to the perp that did that, but for people that get stuff from them and re-publish... I guess we could have a digital equivalent of a handling stolen goods charge, but copyright seems as good a law as any - there is no permission to copy.

Re: One Woman's Dangerous War Against the Most Hated Man on the Internet

#206

Post by gngeal » Tue, Nov 26, 2013, 7:28 PM UTC

XavierMendel wrote: post #36

krenoten wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rootkits exist that survive OS reinstalls. I don't know how prevalent they are, but if you expect a target to try to reinstall their operating system to attempt to purge an infection it is possible to counter this.

Then replace the hard drive? I don't know of any viruses that could hide itself in your case fans so I'm inclined to think that buying a whole new computer is an overreaction.

The issue here (and my reaction was pertaining to that) is that no number of hardware replacements will make the problem go away. The solution is to use hardware that can't be infected in this way. If an OS can infect the firmware in this fashion, it's a security hole by design. Replacement by other crappy HW is a worthless step.