Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)

dheera.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 131 posts

Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)

#91

Post by Infinitesimus »

DavidBradbury wrote: post #86
izzydata wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone who is homosexual isn't any more inclined to molest or rape someone of their own sex than a pedophile is to molest or rape a child. More on topic about censoring important information. I'm not entirely sure about this, but I feel like I've seen images where the thumbnail was retained from a previous version. Even at 32x32 there might be some way to expand it and gather some kind of information from its pixela…

Please do not treat pedophilia like it is a sexual orientation. Also, please do not try to compare homosexuality to pedophilia — you clearly don't know what you're talking about and the underlying implication is quite offensive.

I don't think OP was trying to offend. It was a purely logical assertion that sexual attraction does not correlate with rape/molestation. You could have put any form of sexual preference there and it wouldn't change the meaning.

I think the point here was that [and I could be wrong] we shouldn't assume pedophile == child molester because pedophilia is currently classified as a mental disorder but more importantly, as a sexual attraction to prepubescent children which does not in any way indicate a tendency to cause harm. For all you know, in 60 years, we might start seeing moves to accept pedophilia as a socially acceptable sexual orientation as we did we homosexuality. Let's not forget the dark history of homosexuality's acceptance into society too soon as traces still linger even today

Again, purely logical statement and not intended to insult.

Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)

#92

Post by dheera »

mxfh wrote: post #3

So if something is 1337 days old it gets autoreposted? Could live with that. Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1939607 A bit more precise this post is even older, and was first discussed in 2007 prominently in these two places: http://www.reddit.com/comments/xaae/how_to_extract_personal_... https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/01/how_to_recove... (please refrain from responding with XKC…

I wrote this a lot more than 1337 days ago. IIRC it first appeared on Slashdot.

http://it.slashdot.org/story/07/01/07/1352242/blurring-image...

Not sure what prompted someone to repost it to HN today. But that's cool because I see people continue doing this on a daily basis.

Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)

#93

Post by UVB-76 »

DavidBradbury wrote: post #86
izzydata wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone who is homosexual isn't any more inclined to molest or rape someone of their own sex than a pedophile is to molest or rape a child. More on topic about censoring important information. I'm not entirely sure about this, but I feel like I've seen images where the thumbnail was retained from a previous version. Even at 32x32 there might be some way to expand it and gather some kind of information from its pixela…

Please do not treat pedophilia like it is a sexual orientation. Also, please do not try to compare homosexuality to pedophilia — you clearly don't know what you're talking about and the underlying implication is quite offensive.

In what sense is pedophilia not a sexual orientation?

It's generally deemed a socially unacceptable orientation, just as homosexuality was in many societies until only recently, but it's an orientation nonetheless. It's a useful metaphor with a lot of parallels to be drawn.

In any case, the parent comment was only using the metaphor to illustrate an important point; that being sexually attracted to a certain group of people, and actually molesting members of that group, are two wholly separate things.

Referring to someone convicted of molesting children using the term for someone who is merely sexually attracted to children is a significant misrepresentation.

Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)

#94

Post by jat850 »

UVB-76 wrote: post #93
DavidBradbury wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please do not treat pedophilia like it is a sexual orientation. Also, please do not try to compare homosexuality to pedophilia — you clearly don't know what you're talking about and the underlying implication is quite offensive.

In what sense is pedophilia not a sexual orientation? It's generally deemed a socially unacceptable orientation, just as homosexuality was in many societies until only recently, but it's an orientation nonetheless. It's a useful metaphor with a lot of parallels to be drawn. In any case, the parent comment was only using the metaphor to illustrate an important point; that being sexually attracted to a certain group of…

No. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder or paraphilia; not a sexual orientation. This is thoroughly discussed and documented. The APA has changed any such notation in the DSM.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/apa-correct-...

Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)

#95

Post by UVB-76 »

jat850 wrote: post #94
UVB-76 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what sense is pedophilia not a sexual orientation? It's generally deemed a socially unacceptable orientation, just as homosexuality was in many societies until only recently, but it's an orientation nonetheless. It's a useful metaphor with a lot of parallels to be drawn. In any case, the parent comment was only using the metaphor to illustrate an important point; that being sexually attracted to a certain group of…

No. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder or paraphilia; not a sexual orientation. This is thoroughly discussed and documented. The APA has changed any such notation in the DSM. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/apa-correct-...

This is just splitting hairs over definitions.

The APA are not the ultimate arbiters of what is and is not a sexual orientation, and if anything, the fact DSM-5 referred to it as a sexual orientation lends credence to the view that it is as such.

Sexual orientations and psychiatric disorders are not mutually exclusive.

Bear in mind for much of history society treated homosexuality akin to a psychiatric disorder (Edit: It was in fact classified as a mental illness in both the first and second editions of the DSM, released in 1952 and 1968, so let's not treat the DSM as gospel)

Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)

#96

Post by NhanH »

jat850 wrote: post #94
UVB-76 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what sense is pedophilia not a sexual orientation? It's generally deemed a socially unacceptable orientation, just as homosexuality was in many societies until only recently, but it's an orientation nonetheless. It's a useful metaphor with a lot of parallels to be drawn. In any case, the parent comment was only using the metaphor to illustrate an important point; that being sexually attracted to a certain group of…

No. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder or paraphilia; not a sexual orientation. This is thoroughly discussed and documented. The APA has changed any such notation in the DSM. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/apa-correct-...

To quote from your link:

> According to the DSM-5, pedophilia “refers to a sexual orientation or profession of sexual preference devoid of consummation, whereas pedophilic disorder is defined as a compulsion and is used in reference to individuals who act on their sexuality,” NeonTommy wrote.

Basically, the term that they use in the DSM is "pedophilic disorder" (changed from "Pedophilia"), which is a classified disorder.

Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)

#97

Post by reinhardt »

jat850 wrote: post #94
UVB-76 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what sense is pedophilia not a sexual orientation? It's generally deemed a socially unacceptable orientation, just as homosexuality was in many societies until only recently, but it's an orientation nonetheless. It's a useful metaphor with a lot of parallels to be drawn. In any case, the parent comment was only using the metaphor to illustrate an important point; that being sexually attracted to a certain group of…

No. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder or paraphilia; not a sexual orientation. This is thoroughly discussed and documented. The APA has changed any such notation in the DSM. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/apa-correct-...

You realize these documents are not carved in stone like holy scriptures, right? DSM is in its 5th edition already. Homosexuality used to be treated (or still is in other cultures) as paraphilia or worse. Who knows, maybe in 50 years from now pedophilia will follow suit.

Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)

#98

Post by reinhardt »

sliverstorm wrote: post #77
frogpelt wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"just a pedophile" A phrase I never thought I'd see.

Pedophilia in itself isn't a crime. Well, unless we've started prosecuting thought-crime. I could have missed that update.

Prosecution of downloading pedo material is as close as it gets to thought-crime.

Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)

#99

Post by yeukhon »

Wouldn't cutting that hidden text out entirely with a photo editing tool be better? I've heard people talking about recovering text f. Well, in the case of edges sticking out of the black bar (this happens a lot for people who aren't careful) like using paint, I believe there is a chance to recover partial, if not, the entire content back.

Also, doesn't adding a black bar on top of a text means just adding more bytes to the file, instead of removing the bytes belonging to the now hidden text?

Re: Why blurring sensitive information is a bad idea (2007)

#100

Post by g887nt »

izzydata wrote: post #64
frogpelt wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"just a pedophile" A phrase I never thought I'd see.

Someone who is homosexual isn't any more inclined to molest or rape someone of their own sex than a pedophile is to molest or rape a child. More on topic about censoring important information. I'm not entirely sure about this, but I feel like I've seen images where the thumbnail was retained from a previous version. Even at 32x32 there might be some way to expand it and gather some kind of information from its pixela…

Your pedophile / homosexual comparison seems to imply there's such a thing as consensual sex with a child??

A pedophile is much more likely to molest a child, because that's the only way their desires can be realized in the physical world. A homosexual could, I dunno, go have consensual gay sex? That's why people find this comparison offensive.

Post reply on HN