When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy • Hacker News Board

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#71

Post by brigade » Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 3:13 AM UTC

scott_s wrote: post #59

Mz wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possible, yes. But so absurdly unlikely that I find it strange to seriously suggest the package maintainer did not know what he was doing. There has already been evidence posted here that the woman involved in the project, like me, had some idea it was kind of risque but no idea just how negatively it would be viewed. So far, no one has posted any definitive evidence to the contrary -- it is all circumstantial. And I…

We're talking about two different things. You're referring to the female author of Panyshot, who was a non-native English speaker who did not know the full meaning of "pantyshot". I'm talking about the author of Upskirt who is a native English speaker and changed the name of his package to that of a young anime character famous for upskirt shots.

Maybe I'm desensitized to this in anime, but I wouldn't think of Misaka as being famous for upskirt shots.

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#72

Post by grncdr » Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 3:13 AM UTC

Quarrelsome wrote: post #61

tptacek wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No; Github gave her credit immediately on starting the project. She was irritated that they chose to fork her code at all, and disapproved of many of the changes. But her code, as Github found it, was absolutely not safe to run on a popular public web app.

This is so much more of a better story than the OP. Thanks for filling in the gaps, much appreciated.

Having submitted the OP, I completely agree. You never know where an informative tptacek post will show up... :)

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#73

Post by brigade » Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 3:19 AM UTC

pyre wrote: post #29

antihero wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, so instead of being about non-consensual pictures of panties of random girls, it's about non-consensual pictures of random celebrities, and is thus ok? I haven't downvoted but the term is far from innocent.

So, if I run around naked in a public space, I can call any pictures of the event 'non-consensual' and 'illegal?'

Wikipedia often links to specific laws for stuff like this, you should read them if you're actually curious.

In the US, it's required that you have a reasonable expectation that your private areas cannot be seen. Which no reasonable person could have when naked in public.

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#74

Post by tripzilch » Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 10:22 AM UTC

Well, reading the actual explanation page by the author of libupskirt, it's obvious she's not upset by being tricked into using that name, but she's upset because of the reactions of other people to that name.

She's quite clear she "did know the sexual and voyeurism connotations of the word “upskirt”", but she was caught completely surprised by the shitstorm created by people that felt offended by it.

So if you're looking for blame, blame the white knights on their high horses of political correctness, for giving somebody so much shit over what could have been just a childish joke [like there are many others, as pointed out ITT], that she just wanted to quit and have nothing to do with the entire shitbasket anymore.

Just read it. Even after knowing exactly what it meant, her horror is at the reaction of the angry PC mob, that is making this word out to be much worse than the harmless innuendo she intended it to be.

This woman is clearly intimidated, so much she's making blanket apologies left and right and just wants this to be over. But ask yourselves, who's she intimidated by?

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#75

Post by scott_s » Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 11:05 AM UTC

brigade wrote: post #71

scott_s wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about two different things. You're referring to the female author of Panyshot, who was a non-native English speaker who did not know the full meaning of "pantyshot". I'm talking about the author of Upskirt who is a native English speaker and changed the name of his package to that of a young anime character famous for upskirt shots.

Maybe I'm desensitized to this in anime, but I wouldn't think of Misaka as being famous for upskirt shots.

I wouldn't know from first-hand knowledge. I was trusting the article's author on that information.

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#76

Post by pyre » Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 1:40 PM UTC

brigade wrote: post #70

pyre wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She also characterized it as 'illegal,' which may be the case for hidden cameras, but I doubt it is the case for celebrities in a public space.

In the US, it's illegal in "circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the individual would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place."

I find that a bit debatable though. It seems like these laws are specifically targeting hidden cameras in public spaces. If I'm a celebrity wearing a skirt (or kilt) with no undergarments on, who has an army of photographers capturing everything I do, how can I reasonably think that my private area would remain 'not visible' when performing certain maneuvers.

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#77

Post by antihero » Tue, Jul 12, 2011, 7:12 AM UTC

Mz wrote: post #36

antihero wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, so instead of being about non-consensual pictures of panties of random girls, it's about non-consensual pictures of random celebrities, and is thus ok? I haven't downvoted but the term is far from innocent.

If you are famous and attending a public event, you are well aware they will take photos. If you don't want your panties published, you should take appropriate measures to avoid flashing them. It is possible to do that. If they invade your home and take photos of you in your back yard or something, sure, sue the hell out of them. But a famous person at a public event is very often seeking publicity and looking to be…

This is still victim blaming. Just because you're a celebrity it doesn't give people some sort of license to invade your privacy. You could argue that anyone who wears a skirt is asking for it, because their panties are visible at a certain angle (but nevertheless public space). But we don't want everyone covering up just to prevent creeps getting pictures.

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#78

Post by antihero » Tue, Jul 12, 2011, 7:13 AM UTC

pyre wrote: post #29

antihero wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, so instead of being about non-consensual pictures of panties of random girls, it's about non-consensual pictures of random celebrities, and is thus ok? I haven't downvoted but the term is far from innocent.

So, if I run around naked in a public space, I can call any pictures of the event 'non-consensual' and 'illegal?'

If you wear a skirt in a public space, you expect people to have a level of decency and respect. In case you hadn't noticed, creeps are in the minority.